Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 19th September, 1950—met at Half-past Two o'Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATHS OF MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the deaths of Harold Roberts, Esq., Member for Birmingham (Handsworth), and George Daggar, Esq., Member for Abertillery, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Members.

NEW WRITS

Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House, That he had issued, during the Adjournment, a warrant for a new Writ,—for Glasgow (Scotstoun), in the room of Sir Arthur Stewart Leslie Young, Baronet, deceased.

New Writ for Oxford, in the room of Major the Honourable Quintin McGarel Hogg, now Viscount Hailsham, called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BATH EXTENSION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered; Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Civilian Occupations (Reinstatement)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to ensure that officers and men recalled to the colours have their civilian occupations kept open for them.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to secure the reinstatement in employment of reservists called up in the present emergency.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): This matter has been receiving urgent consideration and I hope that an announcement will be made very early in the new Session of Parliament.

Brigadier Clarke: I hope the Minister realises the importance the Services will attach to this problem of getting a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, we are pushing on with the consideration.

Mr. Pickthorn: Will particular attention be paid to the difficulties of men who have one-man businesses?

Mr. Isaacs: I should like to see that question on the Order Paper, but attention will be given to all relevant circumstances.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the Minister say whether it is proposed that whatever arrangements are made will be retroactive, to cover those who have been called up and have since returned?

Mr. Isaacs: This relates to the finding of employment or return to employment. Whether the regulation would be retroactive I cannot say, but the Ministry will do what they can to assist men in those circumstances.

Reserved Occupations

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour (1) what are the considerations of public policy which prevent him from now disclosing his intentions with respect to reserved occupations in the event of an emergency;
(2) what steps he has taken to inform employers engaged on work for the Service Departments as to the categories of their employees who will be liable to be called up for military service in the event of an emergency.

Mr. Isaacs: The basis of reservation in an emergency would necessarily depend on circumstances at the time, and no useful purpose would be served by disclosing at this stage details which are subject to continuous review. Furthermore, there are objections on security grounds to disclosure earlier than necessary.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the difficulty of men who would wish to offer themselves for Civil Defence work if they knew that they were free from military obligations? In view of the fact that certain categories of men will obviously be reserved, cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least give a clear indication with regard to those categories?

Mr. Isaacs: This matter is really very difficult, and those of us who had experience of the constant chopping about of reserved occupations in the last war realise the problems which are raised for employers. Our problem is this. If we were to announce now that certain classes of workers would be reserved on account of their employment and the employers made arrangements to keep those workers, and then because of changed circumstances they had to alter their arrangements, it would create chaos. Our hesitation in making an announcement is really in the interests of the industries concerned.

Captain Crookshank: Whether or not that is the case, can the right hon. Gentleman amplify his statement that there were security reasons against publicity?

Mr. Isaacs: We do not think it is wise that we should let a possible enemy know exactly what classes of industry we consider as being of first-class importance and intimate that those are the ones which the enemy should go after.

Mr. Colegate: Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will keep fully in touch with the employers in this matter so that the mistakes which have been made in the past can be avoided and the

reserved occupations be for essential keymen?

Mr. Isaacs: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for putting that question. It reminded me of something which I might have said earlier. We are in constant touch with the National Joint Advisory Council and we should not make any statement to the House until we had the observations of that body and they were satisfied.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour what is the liability to be called up for training of men who were in a reserved occupation during the 1939–45 war, and who are not now in a reserved occupation; and to what extent this liability is affected by the man concerned being under or over 26 years of age.

Mr. Isaacs: Reservation in the 1939–45 war does not affect the liability of those who are now under the age of 26 to be called up under the National Service Acts, 1948 to 1950.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend by that answer to correct the last sentence of the written reply which he gave to me on this subject on 18th September, which says the precise opposite?

Mr. Isaacs: If it was a written reply, I would like to look at it. [Laughter.] This is a very important point, because there is a great deal of misunderstanding about it. The point I want to make clear is that the liability of these men remains, but there is no intention of calling them up because as far back as May, 1946, the Government announced that, having done all the combing out possible, and having called up everybody we could get, the remainder would not be called up. We do not propose to go back on that undertaking.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does the remark in the earlier part of the Minister's answer mean that Ministers do not read written replies?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member must not think that everybody does the same as he does.

Sir H. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman said that as it was a written reply, he would have to look it up. Does that


mean that he had not read it before it was sent to the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Non-Reservists

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take, in supplement of his check of Z Reservists, to check on those who are not Reservists of any kind, but may be fit for military service.

Mr. Isaacs: The check of the addresses and occupations of Z Reservists is designed to assist the Services to recall quickly such of these trained men as might be required in an emergency. The call-up of further untrained men in an emergency is an entirely different matter for which a current check of their addresses and occupations is not required.

Mr. Bevins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any check of non-reservists has in fact taken place? If not, does he not think that it would be a good thing to allay the irritation that exists on the part of Z Reservists by making the position clearer?

Mr. Isaacs: I have no evidence of such irritation. If the hon. Member cares to give me particulars, I shall be glad to look into them.

Students

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he has made to enable National Service men who were due to enter a university in October, 1951, but whose release has been postponed until after that date, to begin their university courses during the year 1951–52.

Mr. Isaacs: I am at present in consultation with representatives of the universities on this matter.

Mr. Low: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon those consultations will be finished? I believe they have been going on for at least a month, if not more.

Mr. Isaacs: We cannot give directions to vice-chancellors. If I could, in all probability I should not get so many complaints. The date, I think, is provisionally fixed for one day next week, and immediately we get the decision of the vice-chancellors we shall be happy to make it public.

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of Labour whether the arrangements he has announced to enable students intending to enter a university in October, 1952, to have three months' early release from National Service apply to scholars only or to all who are accepted by a university for that date.

Mr. Isaacs: These arrangements relate to boys remaining at school this term to sit for scholarship examinations; they will apply to such boys, accepted by a university for October, 1952, whether or not they obtain a scholarship.

Mr. Low: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman say that they must first have taken a scholarship examination?

Mr. Isaacs: No. They relate to boys who are taking the scholarship examination, but they will apply to boys accepted by the university, whether they obtain a scholarship or not.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Catering Wages (Recommendations)

Mr. Arthur Colegate: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations on pages 46 and 47 of the Report of an Inquiry into the Operation of the Catering Wages Act, 1943, in the hotel industry.

Mr. Isaacs: Immediately on publication of the Report, I asked both sides of the industry for their early observations. I also invited the Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurant Wages Board to give consideration to the suggestions of the Commission for modifying the current wages regulation Order. These suggestions are now being considered by the Administrative Committee of the Board but I cannot say, in advance of proposals being submitted to me under the statutory procedure, what will be the result of the Wages Board's deliberations.
As regards the other proposals contained in the Report, I have reminded all sections of the industry of the very great need for speed in dealing with this matter and I hope to receive the views of the two sides at an early date. I cannot say in advance, however, what steps will be necessary to give effect to such proposals as are found to be generally acceptable.
I desire to take this opportunity of expressing publicly my appreciation of the way in which the Catering Wages Commission have carried through this inquiry on my direction.

Mr. Colegate: Does the Minister agree with the suggestion made in the Report that a satisfactory structure of wages and conditions can best be built up gradually on the basis of voluntary collective agreements?

Mr. Isaacs: I should prefer to wait for the observations of both sides of the industry and to consider them before making any comment.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman promised this House, when he appointed the Commission of Inquiry, that this matter would be treated as one of extreme urgency, and, as the Commission reported last July, when are we going to hear what action the Government are going to take?

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the main Question.

Mr. Gibson: May we take it that when the consideration of these recommendations has ended, my right hon. Friend will ensure that a statutory minimum is laid down for these people?

Mr. Isaacs: I can only say that a certain obligation is placed upon me under the Act and that certain statutory requirements have to be fulfilled. I must wait for those requirements to be fulfilled.

Strikes

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Labour what penalties have been exacted since the end of the war from workers who have participated in a strike in connection with a trade dispute which has not been reported to him under the National Arbitration Order of 18th July, 1940.

Mr. Isaacs: Since the end of the war, proceedings under this Order have been undertaken in only 10 cases in connection With the recent gas strike, and these are still sub judice.

Major Lloyd: If it is true, as I gather the Minister would like us and the country to believe, that most of these

strikes are inspired by Communists for political reasons, is it not a great pity that the Government deprived themselves of the powers of the 1927 Trade Disputes Act by which they could have dealt with these matters?

Sir Waldron Smithers: Are not the words
Oh a servant when he reigneth
Is more than ever slave!
the answer to this question?

Mr. F. P. Crowder: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make available the evidence which he possesses against strike agitators in order to give private persons an opportunity of implementing the existing law and to protect themselves against these persons.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. All available information is before the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General, and it is for them to decide whether a prosecution should be instituted in any particular case. It would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the nature of the information available.

Mr. Crowder: Will the Minister give an undertaking that, provided the evidence is available, in future the agitators in all unofficial strikes will be prosecuted, and further that we shall not experience the unconscionable delay which resulted in the gas strike being so unnecessarily prolonged?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not prepared to go any further than the answer which I have already given.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the subversive activity by certain people in the iron and steel industry? What steps is he taking to direct the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the action taken to sabotage an Act of Parliament?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that strikes, whether official of unofficial, are never illegal in this country if proper notice is given, and that the illegality of a strike never depends on whether it is official or unofficial?

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to deal with the subversive organisation recently formed to disrupt essential services.

Mr. Isaacs: The activities of those concerned are being carefully watched.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while many trade unionists do not believe in the existence of such an organisation and believe that the Government are using the Communists as a scapegoat, the general public, on the other hand, believe that such an organisation does exist and that the Government lack the will to deal with it? Will not the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance which will dispel this confusion?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not responsible for the confusion.

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the London gas strike.

Mr. Isaacs: As the House will be aware, certain of the men who took part in this strike were prosecuted last week and have lodged appeals against the sentences passed on them. In these circumstances, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make any statement at present.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that, as these men pleaded guilty, the only thing sub judice is the sentence? Could he not, therefore, tell the House why the Government did not take earlier action to protect the consumer, because millions of people in London were without gas for three weeks?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has told me something; he has not asked me something.

Commander Noble: May I ask the Minister why he did not take earlier action in the strike so as to protect the consumers in London?

Mr. Isaacs: Because, in the circumstances, I thought the action I took was appropriate.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Minister of Labour how many participants in the recent unofficial strike in the gas industry have drawn National Assistance or refunds of Pay As You Earn during their illegal refusal to work.

Mr. Isaacs: I understand that this information is not readily available.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is it not a fact that, with regulations as they are at present, Government money is being used to subsidise and facilitate this irresponsible type of action?

Mr. Isaacs: That is something quite apart from the Question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked. My answer to his Question was that the figures were not readily available. The information might be obtained if the hon. and gallant Gentleman approached both the Ministry of National Insurance, with regard to National Assistance, and the Treasury with regard to the other matter.

North Lincolnshire

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to solve the unemployment problem in north Lincolnshire; and what reply he has sent to the Grimsby and District Employment Committee's recent resolution on this matter.

Mr. Isaacs: My Department will continue to co-operate with the Board of Trade to get additional industry into the area. New developments in the area have already provided a substantial amount of additional employment and others will reduce still further the present unemployment in the area. The Grimsby and District Employment Committee are being informed that the claims of the area for work under the defence programme will not be overlooked where suitable capacity is available.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that a good deal of this unemployment arises in the ancillary trades of the fishing industry? Will he do all that he can to help them in that respect?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. Some of the work already provided is ancillary, such as fish curing, and in the plans projected there are some trades related to the fishing industry, such as fish-freezing and others, which might be less closely associated but which should provide suitable employment.

Furniture Trade (Unemployment)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of unemployed in the furniture trade at the latest available date.

Mr. Isaacs: At 11th September, the figures were 1,711 males and 348 females.

Wing Commander Bullus: Could the Minister give comparative figures at some convenient date—six months or 12 months ago?

Mr. Isaacs: The figures are less than half what they were in June.

Fishermen (Unemployment Benefit)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour what reply he has sent to the letter addressed to him on 30th September last regarding the payment of unemployment benefit to fishermen during the periods between fishing seasons.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I have been asked to reply. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply which has been sent by my Department.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: As this is a matter which affects thousands of men in the fishing industry in the North of Scotland, will not the right hon. Lady state now what she has decided to do? This is a matter of great concern to these men, many of whom are unemployed.

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member goes to the Vote Office and obtains the Regulations, he will learn what we propose to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Chemists (Payments)

Sir William Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount due to chemists in Scotland for prescription service now outstanding.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): Allowing for the substantial payments to account that have been made, the aggregate balance in arrears is roughly equal to two months' total payments, or rather more than £500,000 spread over 1,750 establishments. I am discussing with representatives of the chemists how delays in payment can in future be kept as small as possible.

Sir W. Darling: This is a very substantial sum of money spread over a number of comparatively small shopkeepers, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman appreciates how important it is to evolve a system whereby they will be more promptly paid.

Mr. McNeil: I agree that I have been worried about these arrears, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that, in part, they have arisen from not being able to price in some of the detail in which Scottish chemists work and to which they were accustomed. I agree that this is a matter of concern and I am pursuing it.

Local Authorities' Houses

Sir W. Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average cost of all local government authority-owned houses in Scotland.

Mr. McNeil: Detailed figures are not available but I would refer the hon. Member to the Laidlaw Report on Scottish Building Costs.

Sir W. Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of houses owned by local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. McNeil: At the end of August, 1950, the approximate number of houses owned by local authorities in Scotland was 345,000.

Sir W. Darling: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate the introduction of any plans to offer these houses for sale to the tenants? Is he aware that a number of tenants would like to buy them?

Mr. McNeil: That is a much wider question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper.

House Rents

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish local authorities maintain different rentals between houses built by them and those built by the Scottish Special Housing Association; how many equalise rents by pooling; and what is the average local subsidy required to equalise Scottish Special Housing Association's house rents with those of the local authority.

Mr. McNeil: Out of 54 authorities in whose areas the Association have built houses since the war, at least 16 charge rents for their post-war permanent houses which equal or exceed those charged by the Association in their area; in the other areas the local authority rents are lower. In November, 1949, the rents of the Association's post-war permanent houses were


on average £5 higher than those of local authority houses in the same areas. I am advised that it would not be competent under the Housing (Scotland) Acts for local authorities to make payments to the Scottish Special Housing Association with a view to equalising rents.

Housing, Ayrshire

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to procure timber for the completion of houses in the county of Ayr.

Mr. McNeil: The procurement of timber is, of course, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I am assured by him that on present indications supplies will be adequate to maintain the housing programme in Ayrshire and elsewhere. In addition, Timber Control have been informed of the difficulties that still exist about supplies of certain sizes and lengths of timber, and steps are now under consideration for increasing these supplies in relation to these lengths.

Major Lloyd: If it is true, as I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that timber is no longer a great difficulty in Ayrshire or, one assumes, in Scotland, could the right hon. Gentleman say what it is that makes the people of Scotland so bitterly hostile to the Government over housing?

Mr. McNeil: About 20 years of Tory rule.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: While ignoring that ignoble gibe, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recall that he has given me frequent assurances in correspondence that adequate supplies of timber would be forthcoming for housing in Ayr? Is there any particular reason why these assurances have not yet been implemented?

Mr. McNeil: I think the hon. and gal-land Member is being a little unfair. I have already agreed that there have been difficulties over certain lengths. We have taken emergency measures to meet the needs in regard to those lengths but, generally speaking, the softwood position in relation to housing in Ayrshire is satisfactory.

WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that the pay of all officers, men and women in the Navy, Army and Royal Air Force has been raised, he will consider a similar increase in the pensions and allowances of all ex-Service men and women.

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Pensions if we will now set up an inquiry to see what improvements should be made in war pensions in view of the increased cost of living.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Mar quand): The improvements which the Government have made in the rehabilitation, the pensions and allowances and the welfare of the war disabled are being steadily maintained, as reference to the Twenty-Fifth Report of my Department, now being printed, will show. For instance—

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to talk with a hot potato in his mouth? I cannot hear a word he says.

Mr. Marquand: I am sorry if the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hear me.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: We could not hear either.

Mr. Marquand: I am sorry. For instance, the number of the main supplements to pension in payment has increased from 15,000 at December, 1947, to 44,000 at July, 1950, and the average payment to 100 per cent. disabled men which was £2 7s. 10d. per week in 1938 is now £4 per week, tax free. The majority of such men are in employment and earning wages. I am in regular consultation with my Central Advisory Committee on all details of administration of the pension code. The fullest possible information is regularly given to Parliament in Annual Reports. There is therefore no reason for any special inquiry.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is the hon. Member aware that, to take one example, the basic 100 per cent. pension of a totally disabled lieutenant is rather less than the standard minimum wage for an unskilled wage earner? Is that fair, or is it adequate?

Mr. Marquand: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would only do what I asked him to do and read the Annual Reports which I present to Parliament, he would know that no disabled war pensioner has to live on his disability pension only.

Mr. Russell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only a small proportion of pensioners are receiving anything more than the basic pension and that many of them are far worse off than unskilled wage earners?

Mr. Marquand: The vast majority of war pensioners are, of course, fortunately receiving wages or some other form of income. Those who are not are adequately catered for by the generous supplements I have just mentioned.

Sir Ian Fraser: Will the Minister say whether the rise which will inevitably take place in long-service pensions as the result of the increase in Service pay, will be taken into account by the Government in any adjustment which they may find it possible to make in the basic rate of war pension?

Mr. Marquand: I have no knowledge of the increase to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether on any past occasion pension rates have been so generously adjusted?

Commander Noble: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his reply he referred only to disability pensions, whereas Question No. 23 refers to pensions generally? Does his answer mean that, after the increases in pay about which we heard the other day, we may expect no further statement from the Minister of Defence on pensions?

Mr. Marquand: Clearly, that question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (EFFICIENCY DECORATIONS)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that when application is made for a Territorial efficiency decoration, one of the certifiers has to be an

officer with rank not below that of Brigadier; and whether, as it is extremely difficult for many men to be in touch with officers of this rank, he will allow this certifier to have a somewhat lower rank.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): This rule is designed to ensure that the applicant has attained a high standard of efficiency and has proved himself in every way deserving of the award. I am aware of very few cases in which difficulty has been experienced in obtaining the completion of this certificate. Such cases are given individual consideration. If the hon. and gallant Member has any individual cases in mind, perhaps he will send me details.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is the Secretary of State aware how difficult it is for applicants to get into touch with their previous commanders, who may have forgotten them, anyway? Why is it necessary to go through all this rigmarole? Would it not be far simpler for the War Office to get hold of the information from Records and issue the medals automatically?

Mr. Strachey: The House is probably aware that this is an award available to officers. I should not think that it is very difficult for an applicant to get hold of a brigadier through his C.O. or in some other way. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind a case of difficulty and will send it to me, I shall be most willing to look at it, and to look at it as a matter of principle for future cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Courts Martial

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will ensure for the future that, when the name of a soldier who is to be court-martialled is to be published, the offence with which he is charged shall also be made public.

Mr. Strachey: We make available to the public the name of a soldier who is to be tried by court martial and the Sections of the Army Act under which he is to be charged. As regards disclosing the full particulars of the charge in all cases, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Members


for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) and Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), on 18th September and to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and others on 19th September.

Mr. Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a good deal of public anxiety about the lack of information given in a recent case, and that more information was given in that case later, and rather late in the day? Will he see that in future more information is given at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Strachey: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but that was an extremely exceptional case, and in 99 cases out of 100, of course, no security considerations arise.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give instructions that when a National Service soldier under the age of 21 is to be tried by court-martial or a civil court, the next-of-kin are informed.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) on 25th July.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Service Ministries have a responsibility for these men under 21; and that a constituent of mine found that his son was in gaol by reading the evening paper? That is not good enough.

Mr. Strachey: The military authorities have always hitherto taken the view that it would be wrong and an interference with the liberty of the soldier to inform his parents. They prefer to leave it to the soldier's own discretion whether he should do so or not.

Dr. Hill: Should not an exception be made where a young man of 21 is charged with a capital offence, bearing in mind that were he seriously ill his parents would be informed under the existing system?

Mr. Strachey: I entirely agree that there are considerations on both sides in that matter. We will consider it, but I should be rather loath to depart from the present procedure.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the considerations which have satisfied his Department so far as applied to soldiers of mature age are exactly the same considerations to be applied to boys under the age of 21 serving away from home, probably for the first time in their lives?

Brigadier Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that while boys serving away from home do so with the consent and wish of their parents, they are not necessarily in the Army with their parent's consent or wish, and that he therefore has a responsibility to look after them?

Malaya (Police Dogs)

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the use of trained police dogs, such as Alsatians or Dobermans, with military patrols in Malaya.

Mr. Strachey: Police dogs are already being used in Malaya, but more on guard duties than on patrols. They have been tried in the latter rôle as well, however.

Sir J. Lucas: In view of the great shortage, admitted in a statement yesterday, of these trained dogs, will the Secretary of State say whether any attempt is being made to get any from Germany, where there are many, or whether the assistance and advice of the Kennel Club is being sought in this country?

Mr. Strachey: So far I have had no requirement from Malaya for additional quantities of these dogs. I saw some of them being trained in the command when I was there, and they are performing useful duties, but I have no knowledge at the moment of any need for any more of them.

Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Air said yesterday that there was an urgent shortage of these dogs, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly communicate with his brother officer?

Boxing, Germany

Brigadier Head: asked the Secretary of State for War why British soldiers are not allowed to box against Germans, in view of the fact that such restrictions are not applied to other sports.

Mr. Strachey: At present British soldiers in Germany are not allowed to engage in games involving individual combat, such as boxing, wrestling or fencing, with Germans. This rule was made in order to avoid the possibility of disturbances at such games. Its relaxation is a matter which we shall leave to the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. McAdden: Was this important decision taken after due and proper consultation with the right hon. Lady the Minister of National Insurance.

Operations, Korea

Mr. Basil Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is satisfied that all proper steps are being taken to ensure the speedy despatch to and from British troops in the Far East and in particular Korea, of mail; and that sufficient mail-carrying aircraft are being employed.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. I regret that there was some interruption in the flow of air mail homeward from Korea during September, but despatches are now being made twice a week regularly in each direction.

Mr. Nield: What is the average time taken for mail from Korea to reach this country?

Mr. Strachey: It is about a week by air mail.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Why is it that registered mail or parcels cannot be sent to the troops overseas, while it can be to civilians?

Mr. Strachey: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the anxiety caused to relatives of soldiers serving in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in Korea as a result of premature and inaccurate reports released to the Press and the British Broadcasting Corporation by his Department of casualties suffered through accidental bombing by American aircraft; why these reports were allowed to be released; and why five days elapsed before next-of-kin were informed.

Mr. Strachey: I deeply regret the anxiety caused to these relatives as a

result of premature and inaccurate reports. It is certainly not the case that these reports were released by my Department. They originated from sources over whom my Department has no control. Having regard to the means of communication available, the time taken to inform the next-of-kin could not be shortened. We should bear in mind that units suffering casualties have themselves to compile and despatch their casualty returns and, in this particular case, the company orderly room staff were themselves casualties.

Mr. Snadden: Is not the Secretary of State aware that the attack was first announced on 23rd September, that this announcement was repeated on 24th September and the previous report was contradicted; that we were given the actual number of killed and wounded, yet the next-of-kin had not been informed; and could not the right hon. Gentleman's Department have done something to avoid the misery and suffering of the relatives of these men?

Mr. Strachey: The greatest danger is to give an inaccurate report of the actual individuals involved and the degree of casualties they have suffered. I think it is better to have some delay than to run the risk of an inaccurate or incorrect report in these matters.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an inquiry into this incident was promised; has the inquiry been held, and are there to be any courts-martial for murder or manslaughter?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question.

Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman referred to communications as if they were unsatisfactory. Ought not his Department to see that his communications on these matters are at least as good as the communications available to the Press?

Mr. Strachey: The point that arises is that on this occasion the Press, no doubt through no fault of their own, gave reports which proved to be both premature and inaccurate, as is stated here. We cannot be open to those charges, especially in cases where it matters so desperately to the individuals' next-of-kin.

Home Guard

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement as to his plans for the setting up of a Home Guard.

Mr. Strachey: I cannot at present add anything to my reply to the hon. Member on 25th July.

Sir I. Fraser: In view of the Prime Minister's recent appeal for recruits for the Civil Defence services, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account with the Home Secretary that very many middle-aged ex-Service men may think that their best services would be in a Home Guard, and that some co-ordination of the recruiting for services of this kind is in the public interest?

Mr. Strachey: My previous reply stated that we are in touch with other Departments on this matter.

Mr. Eden: Is it not the position today that a certain number of men are holding back from joining Civil Defence because they are in doubt whether the Home Guard is to be revived or not, and would it not be advisable to clear up the matter in the national interest?

Mr. Strachey: I quite agree; and the earlier statement did say we must consult with the other Departments concerned before we could make a statement on this matter. It will be made.

Major Legge-Bourke: How long is Civil Defence to have complete priority in recruiting from those who will not be called up for Regular service or for National Service? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the longer he leaves it, the more uncertainty there will be and the less likelihood that Civil Defence will get into its stride?

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his last reply was given three months ago? Has no progress been made since that date?

Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has been travelling round the world.

Married Quarters

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that no families will be evicted

from their Service quarters because their husbands have been posted away for the present emergency, unless suitable alternative accommodation is found for them.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Commissions (Ex-Service Men)

Mr. Odey: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will review the regulations governing the granting of Regular commissions so that ex-Service men of suitable age and qualifications can be considered for immediate appointment.

Mr. Strachey: In certain circumstances, ex-officers may be granted Regular commissions without the need of further service in the ranks, provided they pass the Regular Commissions Board. I cannot, however, agree to the immediate granting of Regular commissions to ex-Service men who have not previously held commissioned rank. In such cases, provided they fulfil certain conditions, they can re-enlist in the ranks and apply to be considered for a short service commission. If they are granted such commission, they may, after a period of satisfactory service, apply to be considered for a Regular commission.

Mr. Odey: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at a case, of which I have sent him particulars, of an ex-officer, aged 30, who had several years' service overseas during the war and was mentioned in despatches, who applied for a commission and received a most discouraging reply?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot discuss an individual case across the Floor of the House in answer to a supplementary question, but I think the rule as I have stated it is the correct one.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Development Charge (Agricultural Hostels)

Mr. Lionel Heald: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware that the undertaking given to the House and subsequently embodied in Circular 62, dated 20th October, 1948, to exempt from development charge dwelling houses erected for agricultural workers, is being interpreted by his Department as applying only to houses


provided for one agricultural worker and not to houses provided for a number of agricultural workers, notwithstanding that they are all employed by the person who erected the house; and whether he will take the necessary steps to remedy this anomaly forthwith.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): I sympathise with the hon. and learned Member's suggestion, but the inclusion of hostels presents certain administrative difficulties. I am, however, looking into the question to see whether anything can be done.

Mr. Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he will apply the same enlightened common sense to the question of development charges generally?

Factories, Gosport

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many applications he has received for the establishment of factories in the borough of Gosport; what development charges he laid down in each instance, both initially and finally; how many such applications have been dropped; and how many have gone ahead.

Mr. Dalton: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of industries have already been scared away from this district, which needs them very badly, by the very high charges they have been told would be levied upon them?

Mr. Dalton: I did not want to give a reply to this Question till I had been able to check it up fully. It only appeared on the Order Paper on Saturday. My information up to date is that five firms have contemplated development: two were wholly exempted from development charge; of the other three, the development charge has been cleared in one case for £100, and the other two applications were withdrawn before an assessment for development charge had been made. That is my answer in reply to the supplementary question. My original answer was that I was making further inquiries.

Peak National Park

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he has reached a decision regarding the objections made by some local authorities to the setting up of a joint planning board for the Peak National Park.

Mr. Dalton: I have informed the local authorities concerned that in my judgment a joint planning board should be set up.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister hopeful that his decision in this case will be accepted as a guide for other parks where more than one local authority is concerned?

Mr. Dalton: I think that in the case of The Peak, where there are five authorities concerned, perhaps the strongest case might have been put against a joint planning board. I did not consider it strong enough to justify the setting up of a joint advisory committee, and I am therefore myself inclined to think that it is unlikely that in any other case any other alternative to a joint planning board would be accepted.

OPERATIONS, KOREA (GALLANTRY AWARDS)

Wing Commander Hulbert: asked the Prime Minister for what medals or decorations for gallantry British troops serving under the United Nations flag in Korea will be eligible.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Members of British Forces serving in or over Korea or Korean waters will be eligible for all British awards which may be granted for gallantry in operations.

Wing Commander Hulbert: Is a special Korean campaign medal contemplated?

The Prime Minister: That matter has not been considered yet.

GREAT POWERS (CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Prime Minister if he will now take the initiative in proposing a meeting between President Truman, Marshal Stalin and himself, with a view to bringing about an improvement in the relations between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the West.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I have been asked to reply. Resolutions dealing with the question of consultations between the Great Powers are now under discussion in the United Nations in connection with the debate now taking place on the United States proposals for "united action for peace." His Majesty's Government are supporting these latter proposals. They are particularly anxious that effective steps should be taken to make sure that the United Nations organisation possesses the means necessary to prevent aggression. They believe that in consequence the solution of problems by negotiation will be facilitated.
In the view of His Majesty's Government it is important that any consultations that may be arranged between the Great Powers shall not be used as a substitute for the proposals for "united action for peace." His Majesty's Government have not in the past refused to enter into consultation with other Great Powers when this has been desired, but their past experience has not been encouraging. The attitude adopted by the Soviet Union, for example, in the Four-Power meetings to discuss Germany or the Austrian Treaty, has not been such as to encourage the belief that a solution of the world's problems can be found by that means.
It has seemed, therefore, to His Majesty's Government that, apart from building on the United Nations as the world organisation for the settlement of disputes and the prevention of aggression, it was desirable to build up a position of strength by means of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and similar measures. But if circumstances arose in which there was a real opportunity to reach a solution of some of these great world problems through meetings between the Great Powers His Majesty's Government would enter into consultations with their friends on any proposals that may be submitted.

Mr. Bower: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, in the opinion of many people, a personal meeting at this stage, such as is suggested in this Question, might have a very beneficial effect, even if the agenda were not carefully prepared and no concrete results emerged.

Mr. Bevin: Well, I can only say that I have had a very good experience over the last five years, and really the Western Powers have got to be strong, they have got to be tolerant, and they have got to be perfectly clear as to the kind of world they want and to stand for it till they get it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the initiative for such a meeting of the four Powers comes from the United States Government, will the Foreign Secretary give it enthusiastic support?

Mr. Bevin: I do not know about enthusiasm. When one has been Foreign Secretary for five years one ceases to be enthusiastic about these things. If it comes from anywhere, we shall give it equal consideration.

CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ORDER

Sir John Mellor: asked the Prime Minister to which Minister questions should be addressed concerning proceedings under the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order.

The Prime Minister: So far as the general administration of the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order is concerned, the responsibility lies with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service. Questions relating to prosecutions for alleged offences should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the Prime Minister aware that on 19th September, the Minister of Labour stated in this House:
I have not thought it appropriate to institute proceedings in the courts in respect of any of these stoppages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 1691.]?
Surely that should have been dealt with by the Attorney-General; and will the Prime Minister comment upon it?

The Prime Minister: I will consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. It has not been brought to my notice before.

Mr. S. Silverman: When my right hon. Friend is considering it, will he look at one of the answers given by the Minister


of Labour today, and, if he thinks it necessary, will he take steps to make it perfectly clear that prosecutions under this Order are in no way the responsibility of the Government, and the Government do not interfere with them?

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Mr. Deedes: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that the Festival of Britain authorities have put in a demand for 1,563 tons of art paper for their various publications; and whether, in view of the repercussions on the publishing trade, he will review this demand and the high priority which has been asked for.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): While it is true that the Festival of Britain's original request was as stated, I am glad to say that by using a substitute type of paper for certain purposes it has since been possible to reduce the demand by 390 tons, or by 25 per cent. I hope that this reduction will help to relieve the difficulties to which the hon. Member refers. The House will appreciate how important it is that guides and catalogues to the Festival exhibitions should be available to all visitors who want them and that they should be a credit to this country.

Mr. Deedes: I appreciate the latter part of the reply, but is the Lord President aware that most publishers are waiting up to 32 weeks for this particular kind of paper, which is causing great dislocation in the industry, and will he keep an eye on the quantity of paper and if necessary reduce the amount of paper used by the exhibition authorities?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware of the wide spread concern at the prices which are to be charged for admission to the Festival of Britain; and if he will arrange facilities for parties of schoolchildren to visit the exhibition in the mornings at less than 1s. a head.

Mr. H. Morrison: I assume the Question refers to the prices of admission to the South Bank Exhibition. I should hope that there will be no widespread concern

about them and I can assure my hon. Friend that visitors will get excellent value for their money. Special arrangements will be made for parties of schoolchildren which will be announced later; but I cannot undertake that the price per head will be as low as the one my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, because of these prices, many families will be prevented from going to the exhibition, and if the prices are fixed to restrict would-be visitors because of the limited space, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to extending the life of the exhibition, even to 1952 or 1953, so that all married people may get in at reduced prices?

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the ordinary prices being charged are very moderate, having regard to the very wide nature of the exhibits and the high value of the exhibition?

Mr. Morrison: In comparison with other charges of admission, I do not think that the prices are out of proportion, and the number of exhibits for which there is no additional charge is considerable. I think that it is good value for money. If I may say so, the House of Commons, for which I have the deepest affection and regard, cannot have it both ways. I have been pressed by the House to keep the deficit on the exhibition within reasonable limits, and it would be a pity if in other quarters there were now pressure to increase the deficit.

Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what we are going to see when we get inside? Last time I asked that question, the right hon. Gentleman said that the question was irresponsible. I am still trying to find out what class of exhibits there will be.

Mr. Morrison: If I am feeling in a good temper and I can stand it, I will pay for the admission of the hon. Gentleman and take him round myself; and I hope that we get out safely.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if certain circumstances make it possible or desirable, the admission charges will be reduced, and that there is no finality about the charges?

Mr. Morrison: As I have often told the House, we will watch things as we go, and our mind will be open as experience is gained. I might add that on the first two days of the 1851 Exhibition, the charge was £1. I understand that, according to the Opposition, the value of the £ was somewhat more then than it is today.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will re consider the decision that children under five will not be admitted to the South Bank science, architecture and books exhibitions at the Festival of Britain.

Mr. H. Morrison: I think it is a prudent decision not to admit children under five to these exhibitions. It will be reviewed after the first few weeks when experience has been gained.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Lord President if his decision includes children unaccompanied or accompanied by adults, and what right he has to interfere with the liberty of the subject in this way? Will he remember that we are not in Moscow?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that it includes both categories of children, and the motive is public safety. As I have said, we will see how things go along. I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but we must consider the element of public safety in this matter.

Mr. Percy Wells: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider lifting the ban in the case of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Lord President of the Council when he expects to be able to announce the result of the consultations between the Festival of Britain Office and the Railway Executive regarding train services in connection with the Festival.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Festival of Britain Office have explained to the Railway Executive the likely additional demands for railway service during the Festival of Britain. The Railway Executive are now making detailed arrangements which they will make known in due course.

Mr. Williams: Does not the Lord President realise that "in due course" is no use at all because towns in the suburbs and counties surrounding London are

trying to make their arrangements with the foreign travel agencies and to tell them what facilities they have for getting people to London?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep that point in mind, but I still think that "in due course" is the right formula.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what arrangements, if any, are being made to run excursion trains from long-distant places like the north of Scotland?

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many clubs have to organise these excursions on the basis of weekly collected subscriptions, and that "in due course" is not quite good enough. They would like to know at the earliest possible moment what the rates are likely to be and what the facilities are likely to be, so that they can start planning these excursions?

Mr. Morrison: I will note the point and see what can be done.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Is the Lord President aware that a number of towns outside London wish to act as dormitory towns during the Festival period, and "in due course" is not sufficient to enable them to make arrangements?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep that in mind. I have received representations to that effect during my recent visit to Margate.

BREWERS' PROFITS

Mr. James Hudson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the annual profits of the brewers for accounting years 1938–39 to 1948–49, inclusive, and, if available, for any subsequent period.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): As the answer is lengthy and includes a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hudson: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any indication of a continued rise in these profits?

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend will be relieved to know that in the latest year profits have been going down.

Following is the table:

The following table gives the profits of the brewers for accounting years ending in the Income Tax years 1938–39 to 1948–49 as revised in accordance with the latest information. Figures for 1949–50 are not yet available. The profits are after allowance for wear and tear of plant and machinery, and after deducting National Defence Contribution, Excess Profits Tax and Profits Tax payable. The figures include profits arising from trade ancillary to the main business.

Year



Profits






(£ Millions)


1938–39
…
…
…
25.5


1939–40
…
…
…
28.5


1940–41
…
…
…
29.5


1941–42
…
…
…
33


1942–43
…
…
…
35


1943–44
…
…
…
38


1944–45
…
…
…
40.5


1945–46
…
…
…
42.5


1946–47
…
…
…
47.5


1947–48
…
…
…
48.5


1948–49
…
…
…
44

POUND STERLING (VALUE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. OSBORNE:

57. To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of the £ sterling to the nearest date, as compared with July, 1945.

Mr. Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether Question 57 can now be answered?

Mr. Speaker: I did not call it as the time was up. It is entirely a matter for the Minister's discretion and has nothing to do with me. It is not, therefore, a point of order.

Mr. Osborne: According to the clock which I can see from here, it hardly seemed time. The Question is of great importance to us.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot see the clock behind me, but I have a watch which is very accurate—more accurate than the clocks. I have known this mistake happen before when Members have looked at the clock, which has been one minute slow or one minute fast. I am afraid I cannot do anything about it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Has the Leader of the House any statement to make about this week's Business?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. After the Second Reading of the Five Consolidation Bills, we propose to proceed with the Committee stage of the Public Utilities Street Works Bill [Lords]. The principle of this Bill is, I believe, generally accepted, but in view of the number of Amendments which have been tabled, I hope that the House will agree to our suspending the Rule as a precautionary measure in order to complete the Committee stage.
Following discussions which have taken place through the usual channels, arrangements will be made for a Debate tomorrow on the Second Annual Report of the British Transport Commission.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the time for the Debate on Transport is limited, and, if so, whether it can be extended?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that the Debate will proceed all day.

MEMBER FOR BELFAST, WEST

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The King in Council has considered the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the eligibility of the Reverend James George MacManaway to sit and vote in the House of Commons and His Majesty has commanded me to communicate the Report to the House. The Report, which will be available in the Vote Office at 4 o'clock today, says that, for reasons set out at length in the Report, Mr. MacManaway is disabled from sitting and voting in the House of Commons.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that we shall have to study the Report before we make any comments on any detailed matters, but there are one or two questions I should like to ask. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, or can the Leader of the House tell us, what action the Government propose to take in view of the Privy Council's decision, both in regard to the constituency concerned and in regard to the hon. Member himself?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. As the House has just heard from my right hon. Friend, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has advised that the hon. Member for Belfast, West, is disqualified from sitting as a Member of the House of Commons. If the House accepts the advice of the Judicial Committee it is for them to declare the seat for Belfast, West vacant, and we would propose to bring forward a Motion to that effect on Thursday at the commencement of Public Business. A writ for a toy-election will then be issued in the normal way.
In the statements made by the Attorney-General and myself in the House on 29th June, the Government undertook only to indemnify the hon. Member up to 29th June, when the question was remitted to the Judicial Committee for advice. In view of this statement of the Government's intention, it is somewhat surprising that the hon. Member has continued to sit and vote in the House. Despite this, however, it is the Government's intention, if the House does decide to declare this seat vacant, to introduce legislation which will give the hon. Member complete indemnity against any penalties he has incurred by sitting and voting in the House up to the present time.

Mr. Eden: I do not want to debate this matter now, but will only say, in regard to one of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, that in my view the hon. Member concerned had a perfect right to vote up to the time of that decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am expressing my view. However, there is one other question which arises: what is the position in respect of the Government of Northern Ireland? As I understand it, they could not, if they so wished, pass similar legislation in respect of this hon. Member because it is outside their powers? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government can do about that?

Mr. Morrison: I agree that the first observation of the right hon. Gentleman was not provocative. I can only say that the Attorney-General, in the proceedings of the Select Committee which have been published, specifically warned, if that is the right word, the hon. Member that he would be unwise to take the risk of voting in the House. However, I quite agree that he did so and that it was his responsibility. I think the Government are

being rather generous and reasonable in the matter, although that is a virtuous human quality for which this Government is famous.
With regard to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, that is an important point. The decision of the Judicial Committee, I am advised, will apply to the situation in the Parliament of Northern Ireland as much as to the Parliament at Westminster. Therefore, the situation is that if the Northern Ireland Parliament takes the steps we shall recommend to the House, then it will be the duty of this House to cover indemnity as far as the Northern Ireland Parliament is concerned. If the Northern Ireland Parliament did not take that course, then obviously we could not cover the Northern Ireland Parliament; but if they did follow the course we recommend, it is an obligation on His Majesty's Government by legislation to cover indemnity in respect of the past services of the hon. Member in the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Mr. Clement Davies: Although the Privy Council's advice has now been tendered to the Government, the question whether the hon. Member is a Member of the House or not is a matter for the House to decide and no one else. The question of indemnity will arise after the decision of the House. Does the Government intend to leave the matter there, or do they intend to introduce further legislation to do away with these disputes in the future, because this constituency has been unrepresented since the beginning of this Parliament?

Mr. Morrison: It may have been unrepresented, but it seems to have been functioning, including one very critical Division. I quite agree that the Judicial Committee is advisory, and that it is for the House to decide. Assuming the House decides in accordance with the Government's view, then indemnity legislation must be brought forward, but if it does not so decide, the indemnity legislation will not be brought forward, which is what I said earlier. With regard to legislation to deal with the general question of the eligibility of clergymen to sit in Parliament, that opens a very big controversial and complicated question, and I cannot give any undertaking that the Government will bring in any legislation about it.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Is it not the case that the Select Committee of this House which was set up by the present Government definitely recommend that legislation should be brought in to clarify the position of clergy sitting in the House of Commons? In regard to the Bill which is to be introduced to indemnify the hon. Member for any penalties he may have incurred, up to what date will that indemnity hold good?

Mr. Morrison: Assuming that the House agrees with the advice which I have indicated, the indemnity will cover up to the present time but not beyond. With regard to the Select Committee, it is perfectly true that they recommended legislation. However, they did not set out in any detail what the legislation should be, which must have saved them quite a lot of trouble. The House, however, referred the matter to the Judicial Committee for an advisory opinion, which we have now got and which, I respectfully submit to the House, it is right for us to act upon.

Mr. Donnelly: While nobody wishes to say anything against the hon. Member for Belfast, West, because many of us feel that he was more sinned against than sinning, can my right hon. Friend say whether the House is going to have an opportunity of expressing its displeasure against those who persuaded him to vote on a recent occasion?

Mr. Morrison: That might arise on the Motion on Thursday. I should think it might arise even better on the Second Reading of the Bill, for quite a number of comments can be made from various points of view.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: If the House agrees with the recommendation of the Privy Council, will not the position then arise that clergymen of the Welsh Church and clergymen of the Irish Church will be in a different position, although both Churches are disestablished? There are two sections in the Welsh Church Act which make Welsh clergy eligible to sit in this House; and do not the Government think that legislation should be brought in to put the Irish Church clergy in the same position as those of the Welsh Church?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. and learned Gentleman has illustrated to the House how complex this subject is, and why, on, the whole, we had better keep out of it.

Mr. Bing: Is the Home Secretary aware that this Parliament has laid down that the qualifications for membership of the Northern Ireland House of Commons shall be the same as those for this House; that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, West, has sat for a number of years in the Northern Ireland House of Commons and that the Northern Ireland authorities have taken no steps whatsoever to investigate his qualifications? Would he, therefore, draw this advice to their attention and, in view of the duties imposed by the Government of Ireland Act, make representations to them as to how undesirable it is that hon. Gentlemen, who are not Members of the Northern Ireland House of Commons, should sit and vote there?

Mr. Ede: I can only express my regret that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has never been a Member of the Northern Ireland House of Commons, for then this long continued trouble in Northern Ireland might never have arisen.

Sir Ronald Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a large working-class constituency should be permanently deprived of the services of its Member because of the reluctance of the Government to interfere with an Act passed some years before the Battle of Trafalgar?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot see why this constituency should have legal preference over any other constituency in this category. It will not be permanently disfranchised. It will elect another Member, who may be as good as, or better than, the hon. Gentleman who was elected earlier this year, or may be not as good.

Mr. Bowles: Does not my right hon. Friend agree with the view that if the opinion of the Privy Council, that the hon. Member for Belfast, West, has never been a Member of this House, is accepted, an election is not necessary at all, for surely the runner-up at the last Election should be automatically elected? [Laughter.]

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend's point has been received with laughter, but he has an arguable case and it should not be treated with contempt. On the other hand, this being a warm-hearted, generous and kindly Government, we think perhaps that it would not be quite right that the electorate should not be given the opportunity of electing whom they like.

Sir Ian Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, under the legislation which he has promised, it will be possible for the hon. Gentleman for Belfast, West, to stand as a candidate at the next Election, having regard to the fact that the Government promised he would be indemnified, and indemnification for financial penalties is not the only indemnification that is necessary?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, this is going too far. I undertook that in certain circumstances we would indemnify the hon. Member against what may be held to be a piece of irregularity, but indemnity does not carry us to the point of altering the law to enable a new category of people to stand for Parliament.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Government be prepared, if fresh legislation is introduced along those lines, to provide that county council employees shall not be debarred from sitting in this House under the Act of 1899?

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Speaker of the Northern Ireland House of Commons, on being asked a question, declared that the hon. Member for Belfast, West, was eligible for the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and presumably the Speaker of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland would make the same careful inquiries as Mr. Speaker would in this House? Secondly, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the indemnity allows the hon. Gentleman who was elected for Belfast, West, to hold the salary both of this House and of the Parliament of Northern Ireland up to the present date?

Mr. Morrison: On the point of the Ruling of the Speaker of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, naturally I have great respect for all Speakers, including the Speaker of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, but notwithstanding that, I think I must put the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council even higher than the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. I am afraid that must rule. The other point about drawing a salary by a Member who is now advised he ought never to have been a Member is a tricky point, and we shall have to consider it. It is difficult both in respect of this Parliament and of the

Parliament of Northern Ireland, and I do not know whether it is possible for a Member, who is now judged on very high opinion not to have been a Member, to draw a salary and whether the people who paid the salary should have paid it. We shall have to consider that in connection with the Indemnity Bill, but I am not quite sure what we will do.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed Bill to indemnify the hon. Member who was elected for Belfast, West, sets a bad precedent in view of the contumacious conduct of the hon. Member, and will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision on this point?

Captain Waterhouse: Does not the opinion of the Privy Council provide a different opinion from that held by the Law Officers of the Crown, and to save the face of the Law Officers would not the Government consider introducing legislation?

Mr. Morrison: If ever in this country we arrive at a time when eminent legal luminaries cannot have a difference of opinion, life will be almost as dull as it would be if the House of Commons could not have them.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I should like to put two points. First, is it not a fact that the law at present is that where a disqualified candidate, whose disqualification was known at the time of the election, is returned, the runner-up automatically succeeds to the seat? As that is the law at the moment, the Government may have to consider the matter before the issue of the writ on Thursday. Will my right hon. Friend also consider whether the Indemnity Bill ought to be left to a free vote of the House, in view of the grave issues of principle which are raised by the actions of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, since 29th June?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think my hon. Friend's point should be treated with contempt. There is substance in it, and I will think about it, but we are inclined to take the broad, democratic view that the electorate should have an opportunity of deciding whom their Member should be. I always think very carefully about free votes. I have a little experience of them and sometimes they run us into chaos. I should like to be a bit cautious.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask the Lord President of the Council to remember the case of William Preston, who was elected Member for Walsall in 1924? It subsequently appeared that he was a contractor to His Majesty, and so the seat had to be declared vacant. The William Preston Indemnity Act was passed, but a new election took place. In that, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will find the precedent which will satisfy all the doubts which have arisen in his mind.

Mr. Morrison: I follow that point. I think that there are at least two other precedents, one Parliamentary and the other London County Council, which tend the other way. However, I have indicated the view of the Government, which we think is broadly the right and fair course.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that there is a great difference between indemnity before 29th June and indemnity after, in view of the fact that Mr. MacManaway—who was party to the decision to submit this matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—while this matter was then sub judice and having been warned that there was no guarantee of indemnity, nevertheless thought fit to take part in a Division in this House? It happened to be a critical decision where the Members of the House were evenly divided. In those circumstances, will not my right hon. Friend consider again whether the indemnity ought not to stop on 29th June?

Mr. Morrison: I have no complaint about the point made by my hon. Friend. It is a perfectly fair point. On the other hand, the world did not come to an end with that Division—though that was not the fault of the hon. Member concerned. On the whole, we think we had better be kindly about it. Nevertheless, I fully agree that my hon. Friend is fully entitled to make that point.

Mr. Eden: Whatever the legal points, may I ask the Lord President of the Council whether it is not a fact—I not being a lawyer, nor he either—that very valuable legal advice from both parts of the House has turned out to be contrary to the view of the Judicial Committee?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, but let us be careful. There was some very firm advice

on that side of the House from an eminent legal Member of the Front Bench. There was some very balancing advice from the Attorney-General, who said that it had not to be assumed that the hon. Gentleman was entitled to sit. That is true, but that has nothing to do with the case. The House sought the advice of the Judicial Committee, and I am sure that the House will treat that advice with respect

NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS

The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and for the benefit of hon. Members, I wish to make a short statement about the new Chamber.
To accommodate Members, the new Chamber will be open for inspection by Members until 10 p.m. today and between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. tomorrow. Thereafter, I am afraid, the new Chamber and the Galleries will have to remain closed so that the final preparations can be made for their occupation on 26th October. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of informing Members that the Public Gallery will be open on 26th October to Members and their friends after the opening ceremony in Westminster Hall, from 12.50 p.m. until 2.0 p.m. on the same day.

Mr. Bellenger: After 26th October, will the public be allowed into the Chamber in the ordinary course of events?

Mr. Stokes: Certainly.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the cost of lighting and heating this place, will arrangements be made for the other place to meet in the Crypt?

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Arwyn Lynn Ungoed-Thomas, Esquire, for Leicester, North-East.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY RESERVE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, for Tomorrow.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — AIR FORCE RESERVE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, for Tomorrow.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, for Tomorrow.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND DRUGS (MILK, DAIRIES AND ARTIFICIAL CREAM) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, for Tomorrow.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, for Tomorrow.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC UTILITIES STREET WORKS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enact uniform provisions for regulating relations as to apparatus in streets between authorities, bodies and persons having statutory powers to place and deal with apparatus therein, and those having the control or management of streets and others concerned in the exercise of such powers, and for other matters and purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session;
(ii) any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown in the discharge or exercise of duties or rights imposed or conferred by the said Act of the present Session on undertakers;
(iii) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present

Session in the sums payable out of the Road Fund;
(iv) any increase in the Exchequer Equalisation Grant payable under Part 1 or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, which is attributable to any expenditure of a local authority under the said Act of the present Session;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under the said Act of the present Session by any Minister of the Crown, other than sums required by the said Act to be paid into the Road Fund."

Resolution agreed to

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC UTILITIES STREET WORKS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(PURPOSES OF THE STREET WORKS CODE, AND WORKS THE EXECUTION OF WHICH IS TO BE REGULATED THEREBY.)

3.58 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out from "street" to "with," in line 3.
As the Bill is drawn, the Street Works Code which it enacts excludes from its purview altogether the breaking up of streets, and other interference with streets, in pursuance of railway or tramway undertakings. I realise that the Committee upon whose work this Bill is very largely based were not, by their terms of reference, empowered to consider the breaking up of streets for undertakings of this kind. Nevertheless, I imagine that the Minister will recognise that that type of breaking up of streets can in certain cases raise exactly the same problems as the breaking up of streets for water or electricity undertakings. It is perhaps late in the day for that wider ambit to be covered in the Bill, but I move the Amendment in the hope that the Minister will indicate that he recognises that this is a further sphere in which co-ordination is necessary and give the Committee some indication of how he envisages it will be dealt with.

4.0 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): If I had thought it necessary to meet this point I should gladly have done so because throughout the Bill we have


appreciated the importance of getting everyone interested in the problem to cooperate and that has been the basis upon which the Bill has been constructed. I do not feel that the proposal is necessary because the powers of railway and tramway undertakings to break up streets are inextricably bound up with their general powers, and the existing statutory codes which regulate their powers to break up streets have been shown by very long experience to be entirely satisfactory.
Later I shall be submitting Amendments to cover any outstanding difficulties met by these undertakings, but I have received no requests on this point and I should be loth indeed to re-open the whole problem of the responsibilities of the undertakings in this connection on the hon. Member's Amendment. I trust that, with my statement that, as far as I know, he is not speaking at the request of any of these bodies, he will not press the Amendment because I can see no sound case for the proposal.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out from "works." to "(including."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is a drafting Amendment, but I am sure he will agree that the re-arranging of the draft has completely altered the interpretation which would otherwise be given to the subsection. I am satisfied that the re-arrangement of the wording carries into effect what was the rather inadequately expressed original intention of the Bill. I am glad that the Minister has tabled this Amendment and the following one, which is consequential, and shown how it is possible to put down two Amendments, differently expressed, to achieve precisely the same object as the Amendments standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends to the same part of the Clause which has not been called.

The Attorney-General: I was taken a little by surprise. I should have acknowledged our indebtedness to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 17, after "Crown)," to insert:
for any purposes other than road purposes, being works."—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any body or person who is the owner of land on both sides of a highway and of the soil of the whole of the width of the highway to tunnel under or construct a bridge over the highway provided that in so doing there is no interference with or danger of damage to the surface of the highway.
The Amendment is the consequence of some doubt felt by me and some others whether what I regard as a perfectly normal and harmless practice on the part of property owners is in any way affected by the Bill. It may well be that we shall receive assurances that the matter has been carefully looked into by experts on the subject of highway law and that the practices which I shall mention are in no way affected by the Bill, in which case shall be answered.
A large department store may carry on its business in two blocks separated by a street. In such a case, they are the owners of land on both sides of the highway and in consequence, in most cases, the owners of the soil of the highway itself, subject to the rights of the public to pass and repass. If they want to tunnel under the street in order to make a passage so that people may pass safely from one building to the other without crossing the street, they are entitled as a matter of law to do so. If it is at an adequate height to prevent obstruction to traffic, they are legally entitled to build a bridge connecting such premises. I have had experience of cases where it has been possible to carry water from a disused coal pit to a factory under a highway because the owners of the factory happened to own the property opposite the factory.
If it should be felt that the Bill in any way interferes with that perfectly proper and harmless right which so often provides people with safe means of crossing the street and aids the smooth flow of business, I should ask the Committee to accept this proviso, but if I am assured that the Bill does not touch it I should not wish to press the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. Member for the way in which he proposed the Amendment. I hope to be able to satisfy him that it is unneces-


sary in order to achieve the purpose he has in mind. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to deal not with any works which in one way or another may have a direct or indirect effect on a highway, but with works by statutory undertakers exercising their statutory powers. That is the net effect of Clause 1. Work done by private owners on their own land, work done by private owners who may own the subsoil on which the road runs, or work done by private owners above the land of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member would not be within the Street Works Code or affected by the Bill. Other laws, including planning by-laws and the common law of nuisance in regard to highways may of course apply but they are not affected by the Bill.

Mr. Higgs: With such an assurance from such a source, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, after "court," to insert:
over or in which there is a public right of passage.

The Chairman: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the following Amendment, in line 36, in the name of the hon. Member from Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs), at the end to insert:
But excluding any such road, lane, alley or passage, square or court upon private premises solely for the purpose of the enjoyment of such premises by the occupants thereof.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with that. Major Milner. The Amendments raise the same point and they are tabled with the object of obtaining an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill rather curiously starts with a definition Clause and the penultimate Clause is also a definition Clause, and for the proper consideration of the Bill it sometimes occurs that one has first to look at Clause 1 and then at Clause 37. It is therefore important that, if possible, we should get a clear statement as to the precise position upon this point.
Clause 1 (3) gives a definition of the Word "street" when that word is used in the Bill, and the definition it gives is

sufficiently wide not only to include, quite rightly, any highway or other way on which the public have a right of passage but also private ways, private courts, private squares and private passages. One does not use the word "street" in ordinary language as applying to some private passage or place over which the public have not a right of passage. Therefore, I have tabled this Amendment in the hope of getting a clear explanation showing us whether this definition of the word "street" is not so wide as to confer powers on statutory undertakers of doing works on private land unless that private land comes within the category of controlled land, which we shall have an opportunity of discussing later. I should be interested if the right hon. Gentleman could indicate quite clearly, by reference to the specific Clauses of the Bill, if it be the case, as I have been led to suppose it is, that in spite of the wide definition of the word "street" in subsection (3), it is to be interpreted as applying only to land over which there is a public right of way.

Mr. Barnes: I can give the hon. and learned Member a definite assurance that, while the definition of "street" in Clause 1 (3) is in the widest possible terms because it is desirable to pick up every conceivable type of street in which street works could be undertaken, it in no way extends the existing statutory rights of undertakers to break up streets. That, legally, is the position. As far as I am informed, it merely seeks to make quite sure that the definition of "street" for the purposes of the Bill is wide enough to catch all the statutory powers to break up streets so as to afford protection to any one whose interest is affected. If the Amendment were accepted, the owners of streets which are not public rights of passage would be deprived of their essential protection under the Bill. I hope, with that assurance, the hon. and learned Member will not press it.

Mr. John Hay: In some ways I do not think the Minister has the point that my hon. and learned Friend had in mind. We are anxious to avoid in this Bill legislating for undertakers having the right to carry out excavations on private land and private property unless that is definitely within the category of controlled; land As the subsection reads. I have the gravest doubt whether what my hon. and


learned Friend has in mind is completely covered. Therefore, I should be grateful to hear that the Minister was prepared to look at this again. I do not consider that what he has just told the Committee is the kind of assurance we expected to get, and it is certainly not an assurance which we can regard as satisfactory.

The Attorney-General: May I attempt to help on this? This Clause is designed for the protection of the owners of the land concerned—not to enlarge the rights of breaking-up streets, whether they be streets over which the public have a right of way or streets over which there is no such right of way—in any case where, under their existing powers, undertakers are entitled to break up the streets. The Clause is intended to deal with any case where the owner of a private footway or an alleyway or a passage, although there is no public right of way over them, may be subject, under one or other of the statutes under which the undertakers operate, to have that land broken up.
4.15 p.m.
The effect of the Clause is—and this is why the definition of "street" is as wide as possible—to catch all the cases where undertakers have rights to break up a passage or an alleyway, whether it is a street in the full sense of one over which there is a public right of way, or not. The object is to catch all those cases in order to give the owner of the alleyway or passage concerned the protection and benefit of the Street Works Code.
With one single exception, there is nothing in this Bill which extends the rights to break up land. The exception is the case of laying the pipes or apparatus in the controlled land alongside the street.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sure that my hon. Friends will be, as I am, grateful both to the Minister and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the clear and cogent explanations they have given, which are entirely satisfactory. As I understand the position, this definition does not in any sense enlarge the undertakers' powers and there is no question, because of this definition, of the undertakers being able to do something that they have not statutory power to do at the present moment. I understand also that the reason for the Wide definition is to make sure that whatever powers they have got will be caught

by the net which is being created by this Bill.
In those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Barnes: I also emphasise that point and, to make doubly sure, I will look into it between now and the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE STREET WORKS CODE.)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "if the street," and to insert:
in respect of any portion of the street which.
This Amendment, and that which follows to line 29, are both drafting but they are necessary in order to avoid a result which I do not believe was intended. As the subsection is drafted, we may suppose a street two miles in length with a bridge crossing it at the extreme end. It may be desired to break up, say, half a mile of the other end of that street. Surely it is unreasonable that in respect of that operation the transport authorities should be the authority or managers concerned under the Street Works Code? Therefore this Amendment seeks to restrict the scope of the transport authority concerned with the bridge to that section of the street which is reasonably affected by the fact that the bridge passes over or under it.

The Attorney-General: As the hon. Member has said, it is a question of drafting although it raises a not unimportant point. I hope to satisfy him however, whilst agreeing entirely with the object he has in view, that his Amendment is unnecessary to achieve it. When the Bill refers to a street it means only that part of the street where the undertakers are to do their works, or where they have apparatus which might be affected by the works of others. Of course, as the hon. Member pointed out, one might have streets which, in the colloquial and, quite correctly, in other senses, may be two miles long or even much longer than that. Watling Street goes on for miles and miles.

Mr. Higgs: It goes right through my constituency.

The Attorney-General: It goes not only right through the hon. Member's constituency, but very wisely passes on. Although it is true that in one sense roads of that kind may form a continuous street, they are not streets for the purposes of this Bill; only the material part of the street is a street for the purpose of this Bill.
The hon. Member will see that in Clause 1 (3), "street" is defined as meaning "any length of a highway," and the whole of the Bill—there are other Clauses, I think, on which the same point arises—is drawn so that in its context no other interpretation could be put upon the matter. If we were to introduce, as the hon. Member suggests, some such phrase as "a portion of a street," we should get into trouble all through the subsequent part of the Bill.
We have given very careful consideration to this in conjunction with Parliamentary Counsel and we feel quite clear that the point is already covered by the Bill. Indeed, the object which the hon. Member has in mind could not be satisfactorily achieved in any other way than that in which we have attempted to achieve it in the present draft of the Bill. Only that part of a street to which street works are to be done is a street for the purpose of the street works code. The fact that the street goes on and past the hon. Member's constituency does not mean that the authorities in other parts of the street, in the wider sense, would have any concern in the matter at all.

Mr. Higgs: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt in part, but not completely, with the query of my hon. Friend My hon. Friend put the proposition of a street with a bridge at one end and excavations at the other. To such a case as that, the answer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given is complete; but what happens with a street, colloquially speaking, of considerable length with a bridge in the middle, where the whole of the street is to be subject to works and an electric main is to be laid along its whole length? As I understand it, at present the authority responsible for the bridge—the railway or canal authority—could say that they would do the whole work for the whole length of the street because one short part of the excavations passed under their bridge. The answer from the right hon.

and learned Gentleman does not quite cover this point, which was really what we had in mind in tabling the Amendment.

Mr. Hay: I want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) and to reply to the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I understood his argument to be that the only part of a street with which anyone would be concerned was that part which was being excavated, and that for all practical purposes—and, indeed, technically in the Bill—that is all that anyone is concerned with.
I have been unable to find any definition in any part of the Bill, except in Clause 1 (3), which defines "street" in terms as "any length of a highway." That particular form of words would completely carry my hon. Friend's case, because "any length of a highway" could be any length, in fact. It could be a few yards, or it could be a hundred miles. "Any length" is a rather loose expression and I would have preferred a form of words similar to that contained in the Amendment—"that part" or "that portion of a street." I ask the Minister again to consider this point once more.
I know that there has been a great deal of discussion, as the Attorney-General said, with Parliamentary Counsel, and I hesitate to differ from them—I should be very foolish indeed to try to do so—but there is a certain looseness of wording here would could be tightened up. This is to be a statute containing a number of penal Clauses; there are penalties for breaches of various things, and it must be clear beyond any kind of doubt exactly what is meant by a "street."

The Attorney-General: I will certainly look into the point again. I am always glad to look at anything twice, and many things more than twice. My present opinion is that the points raised by the hon. Members are really covered by the Bill as drafted. In Clause 10 (1), which deals with the election which may take place, the street to which the election applies still remains that part which affects the authority in question and no more If the word "street" wherever it appears is read in its context, it can, I think, only be interpreted to mean that part of the street which is affected by the works being undertaken in each particular


case; that part of the street which is the concern of the authority, on the one hand, and the undertaker, on the other hand, in regard to the proposed work. I will, however, look at this question again in reference to the points which have been put forward.

Mr. Hay: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps consider inserting on the Report stage a further subsection to use the very wording which he has just given, so that there is no doubt at all about the matter?

The Attorney-General: I will certainly consider that, but we feel—and we have given a good deal of thought to this—that once we start doing that we shall get into trouble in other Clauses. If we think that we can have some consistent form of words without putting in a different definition in each Clause, we will do so, but I hope that the hon. Member, on looking at the point again, will feel that it really is covered.

Mr. Powell: In view of the explanation and assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(SETTLEMENT OF A PLAN AND SECTION TO BE A CONDITION OF EXECUTION OF MAJOR WORKS.)

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if the undertakers agree with the authority or managers concerned that the works proposed are of such a nature or extent that the functions of the authority or managers concerned under this Act can adequately be carried out without the submission of a plan and section, a written statement giving particulars of the works proposed may be submitted and accepted in lieu of such plan and section.
The first subsection of the Clause requires that undertakers who propose to execute works shall deposit a plan and a section thereof with the authority concerned. It has been represented that in all cases that may not be necessary. Obviously, in a Bill the purpose of which is to expedite works of this kind, we want to cut out red tape and preliminary procedure as far as we can.
It has been represented that in works like the laying of a water main, the line

which the main is to follow is, obviously, a matter which the authority responsible for the street are concerned to know; but since the main follows the surface of the street, keeping an even depth below the surface and following its contours, the complicated procedure of preparing a section of the whole length may be much more than is necessary. Furthermore, there may be works which are trivial and slight, which fall within the definition of the Bill, for which it may be completely unnecessary, for practical purposes, to have plans and sections prepared.
The purpose of the Amendment is to give to the highway or other appropriate authority the right and power to say to undertakers, "If you tell us briefly in writing that this is all you propose to do, we shall not require detailed plans and sections, which will save time and enable you to get on with the job."

Mr. Barnes: I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member. In matters of this description we do not want a lot of elaborate plans and details of sections when the matter is one which common sense and businesslike opinion can determine at a glance. As the hon. Member said, subsection (1) requires undertakers to submit plans and sections, but it does not define "plan" or "section." The matter is, in fact, left open and there is nothing to prevent the following of the process suggested by the hon. Member.
Where the works in question need very little technical description, the prevailing practice is one of communication, provided that it is satisfactory; that is sufficient. There is no obligation for anything further to be done. Whilst the viewpoint of the hon. Member is perfectly sound and sensible, there is, therefore, nothing in the Bill to prevent such a course as he has suggested, and I am satisfied that under normal procedure that method would prevail.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure about this, because it seems from subsection (1) of Clause 3, that the submission of a plan is a condition precedent to the execution of the works?

Mr. Barnes: That might be just an informal and simple sketch. It need


not be an elaborate technical presentation, but something which conveys to the other interested parties what is proposed. It can be a plan or sketch of that description.

Mr. Renton: That is splendid, if it is to be so, but when Parliament puts down as a matter of detailed instruction in an Act of Parliament that there shall be a plan submitted before works can be executed, the words of Parliament are likely to be taken seriously. One can well imagine an undertaker who was suffering from an excess of zeal or one of the authorities or managers, already overburdened with work and wanting to push the matter off a little, asking, "Where is your plan? Parliament has said you have to produce a plan." We do suffer from the fact that there is a good deal of excess of zeal in public administration today and perhaps to some extent Parliament is responsible, because we have too often insisted on conditions of this kind being complied with before people can go ahead to get a job done. I think the suggestion in the Amendment is very reasonable and is one which, bearing in mind the wording of subsection (3), should not be so easily rejected by the Minister, but he should look at it further.

Mr. Barnes: I am not rejecting it in the spirit suggested by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), but what I am pointing out is that these matters have been considered in great detail by all the bodies concerned—the very bodies to which he has referred. They are satisfied that because there is no definition of a plan the usual procedure and custom shall prevail. We must not forget in providing this kind of statutory arrangement or authority for co-operation of this description between a number of public bodies, that they are accustomed to carry out work of this description and, even before this Bill, they had to communicate and take other interests into consideration.
I do not think it is necessary to assume that we have to provide for every detail of administration in a Bill of this kind, nor that they will not show common sense in interpretation. As they have more or less agreed to this procedure, I am fairly satisfied it would work. But, again, I will give an undertaking that between now and the Report stage the words proposed will be looked at.
I do not want to see all the work which has been put into the Bill thrown away at this stage as it represents a degree of co-operation which we have not achieved in the past, but, if hon. Members will leave it at that and permit us to have a further consultation between now and Report stage, which we hope to get on Friday, probably that will meet the point which has been raised. I think that all hon. Members want is an assurance that it will be interpreted so that an informal sketch or communication could be used in cases such as those to which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) drew attention.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We are all agreed on what we want to achieve and I do not want to take up time, except to point out that subsection (5) makes it an offence to fail to furnish a plan and section. It is rather important, therefore, that there should be some degree of precision as to what is meant by a plan and section. It may be that two authorities can easily agree to call a sketch, drawn on a piece of note paper with a pencil, a plan, but that is not a plan and section. I think the right hon. Gentleman should look at the wording again as we want to achieve a common object which may be achieved by adoption of words such as those suggested in the Amendment. I think it a little dangerous to leave it with the words "plan and section" in view of the penalty which is provided.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The word "plan," is not defined in this Measure, but, in consequence of a large number of cases it has acquired a judicial meaning. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend about local authorities. In my view no one is worse in demanding detailed plans than a local authority. If one shoves up a dog kennel, one has to put in a plan, which will probably last longer than the dog kennel. People are entitled to know whether they are rendering themselves liable to a prosecution, and I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) which is a small point but a serious one. People have a right to know what the law is and the obligations they are under.

The Attorney-General: As my right hon. Friend has indicated, we will look


at the matter again, but I think hon. Members are taking a view which is a trifle legalistic. A criminal offence is not constituted by failing to submit a plan and section but by doing works before a plan and section have been, not submitted, but settled and the plan and section are settled by negotiation between the undertaking and the authority. It is entirely within their power to make the plan and section exactly what they like to make them.
This Bill is largely codification—codification with improvements—but this kind of phrase in reference to a plan occurs in numerous statutes dealing with undertakers and authorities. It only refers to the highway authorities, the ordinary citizen is not affected, and no difficulty has been experienced in the past. We will look at the matter again and see if we can tighten it up, but it has not given trouble in the past and I do not think it will give trouble in the future.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has fallen into error as the offence I referred to was the failure to submit a plan and section after the execution of emergency works under subsection (3). It may be, if we do not have the words which have been suggested, a plan and a section having to be provided after the execution of the works, that lack of precision in the wording will lead to considerable trouble.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain whether he uses "legalistic" as an adjective of approval or disapproval?

The Attorney-General: Sometimes by way of approval and sometimes by way of disapproval; it depends entirely on circumstances. I always remember what Humpty Dumpty said:
When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean.

Mr. Renton: While this matter is being considered further, I think we should bear in mind this, which follows from the point made by the Attorney-General when he accused us of being legalistic. We have to bear in mind that the people who will have to administer subsection (1) will not be lawyers, but will be very anxious to comply with the law. We must prevent them from falling into the error of being too legalistic and they may very easily say, "Under subsection (5), if we do not

get this thing right, we shall be subjected to a penalty." We do not want them to be fussing too much about the particular type of plan and section they are to settle in order to avoid the penalty. Let us make it aboundantly clear that a sketch plan will do.

Mr. Higgs: In view of the assurance we have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out from "of," to "they," in line 13, and to insert:
a direction under this subsection.
This Amendment has been put down in part to meet the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in page 6, to leave out lines 10 to 15. It deals with the question of penalties. Amendments have been put down to various Parts of the Bill dealing with the question of criminal penalties, and it might be convenient if we discussed the general principle of the matter now and disposed of it on this Amendment.
In some of the Amendments which they have put down hon. Members opposite have taken the view that the penalties for failing to comply with the Measure should be of a civil nature recoverable in the summary courts or the county courts. We are in partial agreement with that view. Where an obligation to do works in accordance with a particular plan and section is the result of an agreement with other parties, where it is, so to speak, a contractual obligation, we feel, as do hon. Members opposite, that it would be inappropriate to impose a criminal penalty for its breach.
The Amendment which the Committee are discussing will have the effect of removing the criminal penalty in the case in which an obligation to do works in accordance with a particular plan and section is a contractual one, resulting from an agreement between the interested parties. On the other hand, we think that the penalty provisions should be retained in cases where there is a failure—I am dealing with the point relating to this Clause at the moment—to carry out the directions of an arbitrator. In that case it seems to us appropriate that there should be a criminal penalty. As hon. Members know, the arbitrator can give a


direction to carry out works under Clause 3 (6) only if the undertakers have already been guilty of a default in doing major works without previously settling a plan and section, so that there is a kind of double default if the undertakers subsequently fail to comply with a direction which the arbitrator may have given in regard to the matter.
The Committee will appreciate that all these cases which involve some interference with the highways may have serious consequences on the rights of the public. While I share with hon. Members opposite their desire to show kindness to the nationalised undertakings, there seems to be no particular reason why those undertakings, such as gas, electricity and transport, having become nationalised, should be relieved from the criminal penalties hitherto imposed upon them. I go further. If I were to satisfy one of my private ambitions, which is to go out into Whitehall and dig a hole in the road to see how long it would take the authorities to discover that I was not an official of the local water board, I should no doubt eventually be visited with severe criminal penalties.
I see no reason why, if the Gas Board dig holes in the road without having the proper authority to do so, it should not be visited with such penalties. In a large number of Acts which we are here codifying, criminal penalties have been imposed in circumstances of this kind. We feel it proper to retain that provision in this Measure in connection with the decision of the arbitrator. We do, however, meet the view of hon. Members opposite by removing such a penalty where the default is a purely contractual one.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In moving this Amendment, the Attorney-General has dealt with the whole range of criminal offences created by the Bill. The Bill is remarkable in at least one respect, because one would not expect to find that a Bill of this nature creates so many criminal offences. On almost every page a criminal offence is created. I am sure that the Attorney-General would agree that it is not very easy for anyone to determine the precise nature of the offence created.
This is a very complicated Bill, almost as complicated as the Town and Country

Planning Act, 1947. One is rather reluctant to create criminal offences when that can be avoided, when one bears in mind the immense burden cast upon magistrates' clerks of advising their benches as to the law, and of perhaps having to construe a complicated Section of a Measure of this character at very short notice. One does not want to do anything to encourage any form of unofficial strike. Therefore, we have considered whether it is possible, instead of creating a criminal offence in every case, to devise a form of words whereby there should be a penalty recoverable summarily or in the county court. I gather from the Attorney-General that the Government are not able to accept Amendments which we have tabled to other parts of the Bill to try to do that.
I would go a little way with the Attorney-General in saying that I think it is right in some cases, but not in all, that criminal offences should be created. I do not think that we have tabled Amendments at every point where an offence has been created. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made great play of the fact that the Government are seeking, by the Bill, to impose criminal liability on the Gas Board, the Electricity Board and other nationalised industries. I shall pray in aid those words when we consider the Clause which frees the Post Office from any liability whatever. I shall ask him to bear in mind the arguments which he has now advanced when we discuss that matter a little later, though I hope not too late, this evening.
So far as the Amendment now before the Committee is concerned, I would say that we took strong objection to lines 10 to 15 in page 6 because there one finds it is made a criminal offence to break a contractual obligation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has recently had occasion to consider an Act of Parliament which provides that the breach of a contractual obligation should be a criminal offence, but I am sure that he will agree with me that we need to be extremely careful how we extend the law in that respect, if we extend it at all. A strong case must be made out for any such change of the law.
We do not believe that the Bill will be in the least impaired by omitting from its provisions one which makes a breach of a contract a criminal offence. There-


fore, I welcome the Amendment which has been moved by the Attorney-General. If I understand it correctly it makes failure to comply with a direction given by the arbitrator a criminal offence but ceases to make it a criminal offence to break a contractual obligation accepted voluntarily under the terms of the Bill.

The Attorney-General: May I add a word on the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman? We have taken a consistent line throughout this Bill in regard to obligation as a result of agreement between the parties, and, in general, I agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about that. Whether a breach of contractual obligation should also be a criminal offence depends how far injury resulting from it affects only the parties to the contract or, on the other hand, how far the welfare and interest of the general public may be involved. In this case, and in the case of this Bill, I think we shall satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman at least on that part of the case.
So far as concerns other cases where we think it right to retain the criminal penalty, the position under the Bill is that there are 12 cases where offences are created; not new offences, not new in kind, but offences which were, for the most part, offences under earlier legislation which we are codifying here. Under the earlier legislation affecting the kind of undertakers covering the same field as the Bill covers there are, so far as I can make out, 25 different criminal offences; so that we are, in effect, cutting down the criminal liability.
So far as the Post Office is concerned, we must deal with that when we come to it, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that there is a real constitutional point about making the Crown criminally liable in the Courts of the Crown, on the prosecution of the Crown. Another point raising difficulty is a financial one, because under the new Act we passed last year, fines go to the Exchequer, so that the net result of a criminal prosecution would be to pass money from one pocket to another.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: As it will be in the case of the Gas Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(PROCEDURE AS TO PLANS AND SECTIONS, ETC.: GENERAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, at the beginning, to insert:
Subject to the provisions of this subsection.

The Chairman: I think that this Amendment and the next Amendment on the same page, line 40, may be taken together.

Mr. Higgs: If the public have any hope about this Bill, it is that we shall put an end to those games which are played when one authority after another who have pipes, wires or drains under streets come along in succession to dig their holes. That, we hope, is one thing we shall stop; we hope they will all come along at the same time. It is to give power to those responsible for streets to impose conditions upon those who seek to carry out such work as to when the work shall be carried out that we have tabled these two Amendments.
We hope that the highway authority, and others, when they are approached by the Water Board, for example, will cast their minds around to see whether the electricity, gas or drainage people are likely to want to lay mains; and then, if possible, try to ensure that all the work is done at the same time. It is with that end in view that we seek to give them the power when the plans, specifications or sections—or the documents—are referred to them, to say, "Do not do your work until two months' hence, because at that time we know that some other work is to be done in this street." In that way we hope, if these Amendments are accepted, that a great deal of inconvenience to the public may be saved.

Mr. Barnes: I think that this proposal is going a little too far. Statutory undertakers are now under very heavy responsibility to provide and maintain their supplies. Both this Clause regarding the submission of plans, and Clause 28 represent agreement between all the undertakers on this question of timing. As I understand it, the hon. Member is now proposing that the authority or managers of highways shall be able to fix an indefinite time ahead in which this work is to be done. That appears to me to be going a little too far. Surely agreement can be obtained without an arbitrary


decision that the work is not to be done until a whole lot of other work is done, which may not at that stage be sufficiently advanced to be carried out.
To propose that interested parties, as a condition of their plans being approved, shall not start their work until a time specified by other interested parties, is something which would not work out in that spirit of co-operation which we have secured in this Bill. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment, but will leave it under the general arrangements we have made both in Clause 4 and, later, in Clause 28.

Mr. Higgs: Perhaps it is not optimistic to hope that some of the words spoken in this place will reach the ears of those concerned, and that the spirit of co-operation to which the Minister has referred may occur. Having called attention to the point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 7, line 6, at the end, to insert:
unless the notice is withdrawn in the case of each such authority or managers who have duly given such a notice (in which case the plan and section as submitted shall be deemed to have been settled by agreement between them and the undertakers).
This is a drafting Amendment. No express provision is made for the circumstances in which an authority or other interested party raises an objection and then subsequently withdraws that objection. This Amendment makes provision for that contingency.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 7, line 43, to leave out from "also" to the end of line.45, and to insert:
concerned as the street authority or street managers or as a transport authority.
This Amendment seeks to put right something to which I drew attention on Second Reading. It is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it. It seems a little unnecessary to say:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a sewer authority, or to a bridge authority or managers, who are also an authority or managers concerned as being also the street authority or street managers or a transport authority concerned.

There seem to be a lot of "alsos"—I do not know which ran third. I think it can be shortened, and it is in an endeavour to shorten it that we have put down the words on the Order Paper, of which the meaning is precisely the same.

Mr. Barnes: To shorten discussion I propose to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Basil Nield: I beg to move, in page 8, line 27, to leave out paragraph (b).
The purpose of this Amendment is to call attention to the special position of dock and harbour authorities under this part of the Bill, and to seek to retain the safeguard of arbitration in the circumstances under this Clause where a dock and harbour authority is concerned.
The position is that a dock authority is a transport authority under the Bill, and as such is what is called "an authority concerned." As I understand it, and I think that the Committee will agree, by Clause 3 which we have passed there is provided that, before the parties can be allowed in the street, the authority concerned must be supplied with a plan and section showing the work proposed. Under the Clause, if the authority disapproved the plan or seeks to modify it then the undertakers, those who propose the work, may refer the matter to arbitration.
It is for the arbitrator to settle the facts concerning the plan and section, and it is a very valuable safeguard. For example, if a dock authority has a scheme for a new dock and takes the view that the proposed street works will greatly interfere with the project, they are entitled to make representations, and those representations will be considered by an arbitrator.
5.0 p.m.
Although gas, electricity and water will be the greatest concerns and all will be subject to the safeguard of arbitration, a new situation arises under Clause 4 (8), which places a Government oil pipeline in a special position. The effect of paragraph (b), which I seek to delete, is to prevent an arbitrator from requiring any modifications of a plan and section if such modification would involve the lateral diversion of that pipeline. It also appears that the Minister of Fuel and Power is entitled to disregard the fact that a dock or harbour authority has disapproved the plan and section.
The sort of situation which is envisaged and against which I seek to guard is this. To take, once again, my example of a dock and harbour authority which has it in mind to build a new dock, let us suppose there is a Government oil pipeline which, by its position, would render that scheme impossible, whereas, on the other hand, by diverting the pipeline, the scheme could become possible. I submit that there is really little reason why there should be a special situation created so far as Government oil pipelines are concerned, and that there should be retained for these dock and harbour authorities the right to make representations which will go to arbitration, as would be the case in such a situation in other instances.

The Attorney-General: I am not sure that I altogether followed the hon. and learned Member in moving this Amendment. As I understand it, dock and harbour authorities have exactly the same protection in the Bill as is afforded to other transport authorities, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that dock and harbour authorities are transport authorities for the purposes of this Bill, and that they can arbitrate in any case in which it is open to any other transport authority to go to arbitration.
The whole point of the provision of the Clause which the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to delete from the Bill is to protect the Government oil pipeline from any interference which would involve shifting it laterally. If the Committee accepted it, the Amendment would have the effect of removing that protection. The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate the purpose of the Clause as it stands, and he knows that there is at present in the country a very extensive network of pipes for the strategic distribution of petrol, and that the Minister of Fuel and Power was authorised by Statute to maintain it in its present position as a permanent installation, though he himself has no power at all to move it laterally without getting the consent of the owners of the land on which the pipeline is laid—consent which they may not be prepared to give unless substantially remunerated for giving it.
Where the pipeline actually passes across or along a road, the Minister is the statutory undertaker, and, therefore, has to conform, like any other undertaker, to the general street works code and has to give a plan and section to the interested

parties if it is to be moved, but shifting a pipeline laterally might, I am assured, involve great technical difficulties in particular cases. Apparently, owing to the mechanical way in which the pipeline is operated, a lateral shifting of the line at a particular point in a road might necessitate shifting a whole length of pipeline in open land—and most of it is in open land and not in the roads—to enable the petrol to flow freely through the system of pipes. If any lateral shifting of the pipeline was involved, the Minister would have no statutory power to shift it at all, but would have to go to the owner of the land and apply for consent to shifting it laterally, which might involve great delay and great expense.
In general, I think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly desires can be achieved, and is in practice achieved, by administrative arrangements. The Minister will always, of course, consider any proposal that a pipeline should be shifted laterally. I submit that, in a matter of such obvious national and military importance, the Minister should not be placed under a statutory obligation which may result in damage to the efficiency of the project.

Mr. Hay: While I support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield), I can appreciate the great difficulties of the Minister of Fuel and Power if this Amendment were accepted in its entirety. I hope, however, that the Government will also appreciate that dock and harbour authorities are placed in similar difficulties which they find very embarrassing. The Attorney-General has told the Committee that, if the Minister of Fuel and Power was required to shift one of these Government oil pipelines laterally, it might occasion great technical difficulties, and that is a very important matter. The situation frequently occurs, or it will occur under the Bill, when a dock or harbour authority wishes to extend in some way by building a new section of dock or quayside, that a Government oil pipeline is situated in the middle of the area, so that it might have the effect of stultifying the whole project.
It might be that the shifting of the pipeline laterally, even if permissible, could not easily be done without the gravest consequences, to which the


Attorney-General referred, to the flow of petrol through the pipes. In that case, surely, something could quite easily be arranged between the two parties concerned. I appreciate that it is difficult for the Government to give a specific assurance about this matter, but it might very well be dealt with by mutual consultation between the parties, and I would ask the Government, between now and the next stage of the Bill, to consider another Amendment which might have the effect of leaving the matter to the authorities concerned—the Minister of Fuel and Power, on the one hand, and the dock or harbour authority, on the other—to negotiate where there is a possibility of the pipeline holding up development.
If the Minister is satisfied that no serious damage will be done by lateral shifting of the pipeline, and if that is desired by the dock authority, they might come to agreement about it. At the moment, as I read the Bill, such an arrangement is prevented, but I hope that a little reason will prevail and that something may be done to relieve dock authorities of these difficulties.

The Attorney-General: We are willing to have another look at this, though I do not think that the effect of the Clause is as the hon. Gentleman has stated. There is nothing to prevent the Minister of Fuel and Power agreeing to the lateral moving of the pipeline if it is deemed to be reasonable in all the circumstances, but I am sure we could not bind the Minister to say he would do that. What we felt difficulty about was the provision of arbitration and the possible placing on the Minister of a statutory obligation to order it when it might be contrary to the public interest to do so. However, we will certainly look at it.

Mr. Nield: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his clear explanation and for the assurances he has given, and also for saying that he will look into the matter between now and the Report stage, but I wish to make one point of explanation. I did not, of course, intend to convey that the position of docks and harbours was different from that of other authorities, but only that they had rather a special interest in this

part of the Bill. I think the Minister will appreciate some of the difficulties with which they may be confronted in their projects if there is not to be some diversion of these oil pipelines. I feel that the assurance that representations which are properly made to the authorities will be carefully considered will be a great help to dock and harbour authorities, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 5.—(PROCEDURE AS TO PLANS AND SECTIONS, ETC.: PROVISIONS AS TO WORKS IN CONTROLLED LAND.)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, to leave out "twenty-two days." and to insert "one month."

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the Committee is agreeable, I suggest that this Amendment and the next Amendment, in page 9, line 45, might be taken together.

Mr. Powell: I agree, Sir Charles.
We have now passed to the subject of controlled land and the period of 22 days to which this Amendment relates is, as stated in subsection (4), a period to run from the day on which the line of the works through controlled land is settled. To understand the reasons which make my hon. Friends and myself anxious about this period of 22 days, and which lead us to regard it as unduly short, it is necessary to get clear the procedure whereby the street authority authorises the laying of apparatus in controlled land. Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule sets out the procedure.
So far as I understand paragraph 4, the authorisation of the street authority to the undertakers comes into force immediately after they have given due notice under that paragraph. The only qualifying word is the word "before" at the beginning of the paragraph. There is no interval of time which must elapse between the giving of the notice and the coming into force of the authorisation, so that, as soon as the notice has been duly given, the undertakers are authorised to go in and do the work on the controlled land subject to the notice of seven or three days laid down in the neat paragraph.
On the other hand, we find that for a period of a month after the giving of that notice it is competent for the owner of the controlled land to object on one of two grounds, or both, to the right of the street authority to make the authorisation. Thus we get the potential state of affairs that for 21 days, that is, a month less seven days, before the last date on which the justice of the authorisation can be controverted street works may have been initiated—they may have been going on for three weeks during the period in which the owner can legally overthrow the right of the street authority to issue the authorisation.
That in itself is bound, sooner or later, to cause difficulty and to give rise to compensation and litigation. But the difficulty is enhanced by this period of 22 days to which the Amendment relates because Clause 5 lays it down that a street authority can only insist upon shifting the works from a street to controlled land if it makes the controlled land available within 22 days, again a lesser period than the month available to the owner for remonstrating and objecting. Therefore, we are bringing further pressure to bear upon the street authority and the undertakers to undertake works in controlled land which may turn out not to be controlled land at all.
I would urge the Government, whether they accept the Amendment in its present form or not, to look very closely both at the 22 days and at the provisions of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to see whether it is necessary that there should be this overlap, and whether they can make sure, before undertakers begin their works on controlled land, that it is definitely controlled land and that the owner's right to protect and overthrow the authorisation has elapsed.

5.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: This is a somewhat complicated provision. I hope I shall be able to shed some light on it though I feel some doubt about the matter. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) appreciates, Clause 5 (1) empowers the highway authority to object to an undertaker's proposal to break up a street on the ground that the works could more suitably be executed in the controlled land alongside the street. But before the high-way

authority takes upon itself the course of objecting in that way they must, with all prudence, satisfy themselves that they will be able to put the undertakers in a position to do the work on the controlled land within, not 21 days from the day on which they object to the work being done on the highway, but within 21 days from the subsequent day on which the plan and section of the works as they would be in the controlled land have been settled and agreed between the undertakers and the authority.
In other words, there are really two stages both of which taken together are bound to occupy a good deal more than 21 days. The first stage is that at which the highway authority is faced by the proposal to do the work in the highway and objects to it; the second is the stage following that objection when the undertaker submits new plans for the works, as he would have to, in the controlled land, and those plans and sections are agreed and settled in negotiations between the highway authority and the undertaker.
The time occupied by those two stages may be a great deal longer than the 22 days from the date of the disapproval under Clause 5 (1) because, as the hon. Member has pointed out, the procedure under the First Schedule has to be followed. The authority has to give notice of its intention to authorise the work in the controlled land and the owner has, as the hon. Member said, a month in which to make his objection. But the period of a month in the procedure under the First Schedule and the period of 21 days in the procedure under Clause 5 are really quite unrelated to each other. They may, in practice, be periods which to some extent run concurrently, but, on the other hand, they may not.
An enlargement of the period under Clause 5 to a month would not in any way affect the owner's right under the First Schedule procedure to a month in which to object. He already has that month under the First Schedule, and, in practice, what will happen—and the whole purpose of this provision is to expedite the procedure as far as possible—is that the highway authority will estimate how long the procedure for authorisation for use of the controlled land is likely to take and how long the procedure for settling the plan and section


of the work in the controlled land is likely to take. If they are wise they will delay settling the plan and section of the work until they are quite sure that 21 days after that period will be sufficient to cover the time required for full operation of the procedure under the First Schedule of the Bill.
If it is clear, knowing, as they will, of the objections which are likely to be raised, if it is apparent that procedure under the First Schedule for securing the use of controlled land will take much longer than three weeks after the settlement of the new set of plans and sections then, no doubt, the highway authority will consider it unwise to object to the works being done in the highway itself in the first instance. They will have to make the best appreciation they can of the time that getting controlled land is likely to occupy, and merely adding 7 days to the period after the approval of plans and sections would really not assist very much at all in this matter.
Having made the best estimate they can of the time likely to be taken by Schedule One procedure, if they do object to work being done in a street and are not able to make the land available within 21 days of the date when the plan has been settled, then, as the hon. Member will observe, under Clause 5 (4) (a), the undertakers can go ahead with their works subject to the fact that if it turns out, eventually, that authority to do the works cannot be given they will have to be taken up, the owner will have to be compensated, and the highway authority will have to pay the undertakers for having authorised them to do works when, in fact, the authority have no power to give such an authorisation.
If, on the other hand, they commence their works in controlled land before receiving authority from the highway authority and that authority is not eventually available, they will be required to take those works out and reinstate the land at their own expense. Two procedures which are, in fact, quite separate may be working concurrently. It does not seem to us that to enlarge the period under Clause 5 by 7 days would be any better than to enlarge it by 70 days. Merely to put down the same period of days in Clause 5 as in the First Schedule would not affect the position at all because

it does not alter the owner's right to object to the procedure that may take place under Schedule One.
I hope that, in the circumstances, the hon. Member will appreciate that the object of the Clause as framed is to secure expedition, as far as may be, on the part of everybody concerned, including the highway authority and the undertakers. The exact period was discussed in detail with all the interested parties and they came to the conclusion that a period of 22 days—I am sorry I have been saying 21 days all the time—was the correct period. That was agreed and, in the circumstances, and, in view of the explanation I have attempted to give in this rather complicated matter, the hon. Member will feel it is unnecessary to press the Amendment and thereby upset the agreement reached.

Mr. Hay: The Attorney-General has just told us that this has largely been agreed to between all the interested parties. I do not know where he has had that information, but I think it is highly unlikely that, in these discussions and in the agreement reached, there were any representatives of the owners of controlled land. I am very concerned to know, and perhaps the Attorney-General could tell us, whether or not this period of 22 days is going to be adequate to owners of controlled land—it may be house-owners with front gardens affected—to lodge objections and take the necessary action.
I am concerned about that point because, admirable as the Bill may be in many respects, we must make certain that, if we are going to allow local authorities and statutory undertakers to do work in land belonging to private individuals, those individuals should have every opportunity and safeguard for the exercising and protecting of their legitimate rights. I should be grateful if the Attorney-General could tell us if, in this period under this Clause, there is adequate opportunity for the private individual whose land is concerned in this proposal to make any objections.

The Attorney-General: This Clause does not really deal with the right of the owner of controlled land alongside the highway to make objection. That is dealt with under the First Schedule under which he has a month in which to do it. It was thought that was adequate


time to enable him to consult his lawyers, or, if he had not consulted them, to put in an objection for the sake of caution. One has to fix an arbitrary time limit in this matter because it is desirable to secure expedition in regard to it. A month seems fair, and to alter the period in this Clause would not affect that time, which remains as a month in the Schedule.

Mr. Powell: While I can assure the Attorney-General that his explanation of the Clause and First Schedule was extremely clear, there are two difficulties still remaining. One is in connection with the action of the street authority under Clause 5, first in objecting and then in the settling of a new line. The Attorney-General repeatedly referred to their estimate of the time required for First Schedule procedure and said no rational street authority would settle the plans until it was sure it could give the authorisations in 23 days, I submit, however, that, in fact, the time required for the operation of First Schedule procedure, as it stands, is really only one day or less because, as soon as notice has been given, the authorisation can be issued. A valid authorisation can be issued immediately notice has been duly served, under paragraph 4. At least I conceive it to be so.
The position may arise, therefore, that a street authority, fully convinced that the area they are thinking about is controlled land and they are perfectly justified in giving authorisation, may neglect to give that authorisation until after settlement of new plans and, eventually, to their surprise, they find that the objection put in by the owner is well founded.
The second point is that I can conceive that procedure in paragraph 4 of the First Schedule is unsatisfactory. It does mean, quite apart from Clause 5, that the statutory undertaker can start laying his apparatus in controlled land three weeks before the date before which the owner can successfully overthrow the authorisation. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at this whole complex of authorisation again and see whether he cannot solve two difficulties at once by revision of First Schedule procedure which, for example, would give a month's notice before authorisation came into effect, so that no authorisation could come into effect and be subsequently overthrown.

The Attorney-General: I will certainly do that, but the hon. Member appreciates that that is quite a different point, which is not covered by the present Amendment. In practice these things would be connected, but legally they are quite distinct. The hon. Member has paragraph 4 of the First Schedule in mind, under which notice has to be given and the owner of the land has a month within which he can object. True, work may commence in the meantime, but, if it turns out that the owner has a valid objection, there has to be reinstatement.

Mr. Powell: In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's undertaking to look at this, and in view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman: The next two Amendments in page 10, line 13, after "undertakers," insert "and", and in line 14, leave out paragraph (b), would appear to be connected with the next Government Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not sure that they are connected, but I think they might be discussed together in order to save time. Perhaps we could hear the Minister's explanation of his Amendment and then discuss my two Amendments.

5.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move in page 10, line 17, after "time", to insert:
after the authority had purported to authorise the execution thereof in that land and.
This is a matter of drafting. Under the Clause as it was drafted the undertaker would be entitled to payment for removing his apparatus from controlled land, even though he had put it there before being authorised to do so. The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) was kind enough to draw our attention to this point. It was obviously not intended that an undertaker should be able to engage in an exercise of that kind at the expense of the highway authority. We have, therefore, introduced this Amendment to prevent the undertaker, so to speak, beating the gun and commencing work in the controlled land before the necessary authority has been given to him. He is not entitled to beat the gun and, although disqualified, get possession of the prize money as well. I think that will meet the


point which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind, and I think it meets all the points covered by his two Amendments.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: You were quite right, Sir Charles. This Amendment does cover the point which I desired to raise and, in fact, it covers it extremely satisfactorily. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for dealing with the point in this manner after it had been drawn to his attention.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 6.—(WORKS NOT TO BE BEGUN UNTIL AFTER NOTICE TO AUTHORITIES AND MANAGERS CONCERNED.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hay: I had an Amendment on the Order Paper to this Clause, in page 11, line 15, to leave out subsection (3), but as it has not been called I should like to draw the attention of the Government to the point which I had in mind. In subsection (3) there is a reference to the substantial commencement of works. It seemed to me that the word "substantial" might be capable of misunderstanding unless there were some clear definition in the Bill of what was meant. We must have some sort of test of when it could be said that works had been "substantially begun." Would substantial commencing of works mean when the equipment for digging up the road and carrying out the operation was on the site, or would it mean that the roadway surface itself would have to be penetrated before the works had been "substantially begun"? I feel that we should have some clarification on that point.
The second point I had in mind was whether or not a second notice was really necessary. I can conceive of a situation arising where there might be delay in commencing works, whether substantially or not, and it seemed to me rather unnecessary for a second notice to be given if the first one could be held in abeyance for a short time until the impediment which prevented the commencement of the works could be removed. Those are my two short points, and I would be grateful if they could be considered between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Barnes: I certainly agree with what the hon. Member has said. I came into the Chamber rather hurriedly and was not able fully to digest the point that he was enunciating, but I undertake to look at the two Amendments which have not been called, to consider his observations, and see whether any clarification is needed on the Report stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 7.—(REQUIREMENTS AS TO MODE OF EXECUTING MAJOR WORKS, AND AS TO REINSTATEMENT.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 12, line 27, after "it," to insert:
shall carry on and complete the works with all such dispatch as is reasonably practicable, and.
The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) will recollect that during the Second Reading Debate he raised this problem rather pointedly—and it obtained support in other quarters—that no arrangements had been made for undertakers to complete their works with dispatch. On looking into the matter I decided to submit this Amendment to meet that point. As the Bill was then drawn, there was no such duty on the undertakers. I do not assume, and I do not suppose other hon. Members would assume, that there would be general neglect on the part of undertakers in this respect, but nevertheless, as this is a process of co-ordination there is a good deal to be said for emphasising the need for the quick results and the steady dispatch of any task that they undertook, especially as it affected other undertakers. I submit that this Amendment fully meets the point.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think this Amendment is a definite improvement, but I am not quite clear how it operates having regard to the terms of Clause 29 (4). I ask the Attorney-General whether the insertion of these words in Clause 7 (2) means that anyone who does not
carry on and complete the works with all such dispatch as is reasonably practicable
will be guilty of a criminal offence. Clause 7 (2) goes on to refer to specific obligations, but this Amendment is put in before reference is made to those obligations. I ask the right hon. and learned


Gentleman whether by the insertion of these words one is merely imposing a duty without providing any sanction for the non-performance of that duty. My second question is whether the insertion of these words adds anything to what is in Clause 29 (4).

The Attorney-General: I do not think Clause 29 to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has called attention is attracted in this case. There is deliberately no sanction for the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend because it is very difficult to define the duty specifically enough to impose a criminal sanction for its breach. It is a little difficult to impose a punishment on undertakers for not doing what in practice manifestly they will want to do. We did consider the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, but it appeared difficult to make the obligation actually sanctionable. We hope, notwithstanding that there is no definite sanction for it, that it will be adhered to in practice, and that in practice it will be in the interests of those concerned to adhere to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, after "with," to insert "reasonable."

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we might discuss this Amendment with the following Amendment, in line 33, after "their," to insert "reasonable."

Mr. Hay: The Clause lays down requirements in executing major works and subsection (4), with which these Amendments are concerned, makes it necessary for the undertakers to carry out their works in a certain manner. Penal consequences are attached to the failure to carry out certain requirements. The object of these Amendments can be stated shortly. We feel that the wording of subsection (4) is a little too hard, bearing in mind that those penal consequences are attached in the second part of the subsection. We feel that there should be a softening of the requirements, if I may put it that way, and we suggest that undertakers should be called upon to carry out their obligations in accordance with the
reasonable requirements of such an authority or managers or to their reasonable satisfaction.

Mr. Barnes: I see no reason to disagree with that view and I shall be glad to accept both Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 33, after "their," insert "reasonable."—[Mr. Hay.]

The Chairman: I presume that, in view of the following Government Amendment, the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) will not wish to move his Amendment, in page 13, line 34, after "may," insert
within twenty-eight days of the completion of the said works.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 13, line 38, after "purpose," to insert
and that the claim was notified as early as was reasonably practicable.
As drafted, the Clause places no obligation upon the interested parties who complain about an undertaker's work to lodge that complaint within a reasonable time. This Amendment lays down that, where interested parties are dissatisfied with the way in which undertakers have done their work, they shall lodge as early as "reasonably practicable" their complaint for additional remedial works to be done. I hope that the word "reasonable" will again commend itself to the Committee.

Mr. Higgs: This Amendment meets very fully the point which I and my hon. Friends had in mind in the Amendment which has not been moved, and we are indebted to the Minister for dealing with the situation.

Amendment agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 40, after "of," to insert
an award on an arbitration under.
This Amendment is similar to that which we had an opportunity of discussing earlier—an Amendment to Clause 3, page 6, line 11. The criminal penalty, as the Committee then agreed, should not be imposed simply in the case of a failure to carry out an agreement as to works, but should exist where there has been a disobedience to an arbitrator's direction to do them. That is the effect of this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 14, line 10, to leave out "six," and to insert "twelve."
This subsection deals with the case where the reinstatement of a street, after undertakers' works, subsequently proves to be defective through the fault of the undertakers with the result that either subsidence or some other defect becomes apparent. The question is to decide what is a fair period within which such subsidence or other defect should be attributable to the negligence or fault of the reinstating undertakers. The period in the Bill is six months.
I am aware that it has been argued already in another place that that period is too short and that it should be extended to a year. Nevertheless, I believe that the grounds for the extension should be brought forward again, because they appear to me to be strong. We have to make up our minds what is a fair criterion. We must not take a period which is so long that the natural wear and tear upon a road might have contributed to the subsidence or the defects, nor must we take a period so short that the defects could not be expected to show themselves. I suggest that a period of one year is the fairest we could lay down.
In that case, the reinstated street will have gone through the whole of the seasons of the year. Let us suppose that the breaking open and reinstatement took place in March or April of a year in which there was a tine and dry summer. At the end of six months the same atmospheric conditions would prevail as those prevailing at the reinstatement, and in the subsequent invariably severe and inclement winter, as I believe it would be, the subsidence and defects due to faulty reinstatement would show themselves. It seems to me only reasonable that the works of reinstatement should stand, at any rate, the test of seeing the clock round, of seeing one year through all the seasons.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member has raised an exceedingly disputable issue. He is aware that the Carnock Committee gave full consideration to this subject and came to the conclusion that the period of six months was probably a fairer compromise than the 12 months which prevailed formerly in the case of a good many undertakers. In our negotiations on this

Bill we have found this a very difficult issue. It is not always possible fairly to determine the problem of the settlement of the subsoil. As the hon. Member knows, it can vary in a great number of conditions.
I emphasise that I do not take the view that any agreements which have been reached in our discussions cannot be altered in this House. I do not take that view at all, but I think hon. Members are generally aware that in this kind of Bill we have to deal with a number of public and statutory authorities which have statutory powers granted by this House and which are governed by statute. In matters of this kind, where there is a dispute on questions of liability, of costs, of expenses and so on, we have to enter into a good deal of negotiation which, invariably, means, finally, a compromise. On this question of the highway authority's finally repairing the roads, it was felt that the six months period ought reasonably to represent the time taken for the settlement of the subsoil, and that, more or less, at the end of that time, therefore, the undertakers' liabilities ought to end.
I do not think there is any doubt that if I were to depart from this provision at this stage it would cause a sense of unfairness, as a going back on what had been a generally agreed period. I would be the first to admit that there are examples where we could show six months was not a sufficient time—or that seven months or eight months or nine months was not a sufficient time; but, on the whole, this is a very fair compromise; it represents a considered decision of the Carnock Committee, upon whose recommendations this Bill's provisions are largely framed. Therefore, I urge that this Amendment should not be pressed.

Sir Austin Hudson: I entirely agree with what the Minister says, that, of course, this House is entirely master of its destiny, and that this Committee can do what it likes; but that, on the other hand, as I pointed out on Second Reading, and as other speakers did, this Bill is the result of years and years of negotiation—very careful negotiation from 1925 until 1938—between a large number of people. It was only after all that negotiation that we were able to get something like agreement and to get this Bill before the House.
Therefore, unless there is some very strong reason why an agreed time such as six months—as it is in this case—should be altered, I suggest to the Committee that it would be very much better to keep the agreement. Once we start to alter it—and it may be necessary later to do so in some particular—we may cause a sense of injustice; whereas at the present moment, I think, there is a general agreement on both sides of the Committee and outside, amongst all the numerous people interested in this Bill, that we have got something we are all generally agreed upon. Some of those people have had to make concessions one way or the other, and if we can keep the agreement I hope the Committee will agree to do so.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I beg to move, in page 14, line 41, at the end, to insert:
And provided that if any dispute shall arise between the undertakers and any authority or managers concerned as to whether subsidence has been shown to have been attributable to defective workmanship or use of defective materials in the doing of reinstatement or making good so far as it was done otherwise than by the undertakers or whether deterioration has been shown to have been attributable to defective workmanship or use of defective materials in the doing of reinstatement or making good so far as it was done by the undertakers, such dispute shall be determined by arbitration.
I shall not detain the Committee to go into this matter. The Amendment is intended to provide for the arbitration procedure because it is thought that there is likely to be some argument about the exact application of the words "defective workmanship or use of defective materials," which appear in lines 24 and 32 of page 14.

The Attorney-General: We agree with the object which the hon. Member has in mind, but the Amendment seems to be unnecessary. The undertakers and the authority can already go to arbitration by virtue of Clause 30 (2), which provides for general arbitration. It is, in fact, the general arbitration Clause. I hope that in those circumstances the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 14, line 41, at the end, to add:

Provided also that the undertakers shall not be liable to make any payment under this subsection if they can prove that the subsidence or other deterioration was neither wholly nor substantially caused by the execution of works by them.
The Amendment is designed to make it quite clear that the words of the two paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection do, in fact, govern what appears at the beginning of subsection (6), which provides at the beginning that where the works have been done in a street or on controlled land, and there is any subsidence or deterioration, the people who have carried out the work can be called upon to deal with the matter—any subsidence or deterioration due to anything at all. It did occur to me that it ought to be made clear that those doing the works in the street are not to be made responsible for some clear mischance. There might be a mining subsidence in the period of six months or some deterioration of some type altogether outside the scope of this Bill. Therefore, I propose that these words should be put in to make it clear that subsidence or deterioration of that sort which takes place has nothing to do with the works.

The Attorney-General: I think that the point which the hon. Member has in mind would be clear without the Amendment. The position under the Bill is that the undertakers are made insurers in respect of the work that they do, and if on that work there is any deterioration, then they are liable and cannot go into the question of how it arose. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) said just now, this Bill was the subject of a great deal of negotiation. There was give and take on both sides. In some matters the undertakers gained on the swings—as, for instance, by the limitation of liability to six months instead of to 12. In some matters they lost on the roundabouts, I dare say.
Under this Clause the position is that they are insurers of their work. If there is subsidence not connected with their work it is not their liability. If the subsidence or other deterioration is in their work, in that part of the street which they opened up themselves, they are not able to so into the cause of it, and are liable without the arbitrator or anyone else having to explore the sometimes very difficult questions of fact and law which might arise as to the exact causation.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I ask this question? Suppose the actual piece of street in which the undertakers have made an excavation subsequently suffers subsidence, either owing to mining or other operations, would the undertakers be relieved from responsibility? If that part of the street in which they have been working in fact sinks and they could show that it was due to some cause quite independent of their own activities, is it quite clear that the Bill is so drafted as to free them from all liability?

The Attorney-General: I think so. This subsidence or deterioration not of their own work would be of the street as a whole, and, as I understand the drafting of the Bill, they would not be liable in that case. I will look at that. If there appears to be doubt about it we will put an Amendment down.

Mr. Higgs: Upon that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hay: A point arises out of subsection (3, b). Subsection (3) provides that the undertakers who are carrying out recommended works have to pay in respect of the work which a transport authority does for safeguarding the people who are engaged in carrying out the work—in other words, giving them adequate control of traffic, and so on. I am a little worried about the position if that arrangement is in force. The employee, shall we say, of the undertakers is injured through the negligence of someone connected with the transport authority. If the undertakers have paid for the transport authority to carry out the protection of their employees, against whom will the employee who is injured be able to go? Against his employers, the undertakers? Of will he have the right to go against the transport authority itself? It may seem only a small point, but I think it is one we should look at before the Clause passes from us.

The Attorney-General: That is a hypothetical question which it is difficult to answer with confidence because so much will depend on the actual circumstances, but if he is injured by the negligence

of the servants or agents of the transport authority then his claim at common law would presumably be against them. The question the hon. Member has in mind is whether, being liable to pay on that claim, they could recover the cost of it from the employer, and the man who has been so injured—

Mr. Hay: It refers to securing safety.

The Attorney-General: Yes, I should like to look at that, but my impression is that they could not, and would be liable for their own negligence. I will look at that, certainly. I am much obliged.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Powell: There is, I think, a small defect in the drafting of this Clause which results in an unintended anomaly. One of the important innovations this Bill makes is to confer the "right of election," as it is called, upon the street authority, so that they have the overriding right, if they wish to do it, to carry out the reinstatement. Now by a curious quirk, which I think is not intended, should reinstatement prove defective, they have not got a similar right of election to make good the defective reinstatement, because under the last two lines of the Clause they are under an obligation to give the undertakers the prior chance to do the work. I suggest that it is a logical corollary to the right of election to reinstate that we should also give the street authority the right of election to reinstate the reinstatement should it prove defective. I should be glad if the Attorney-General would also look at that point.

The Attorney-General: Yes, certainly we will look at that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 8.—(REQUIREMENTS AS TO SAFETY, OBSTRUCTION, ETC., TO BE OBSERVED IN EXECUTION OF WORKS.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 15, line 5, after "access," to insert:
and are not permitted to have access.

Clause 8 (1) is, of course, a protective provision for the public. Undertakers, in carrying out their work, must fence, guard and light their works to protect the


public from danger and injury. This Amendment provides that undertakers shall be required to fence, guard and light their excavations except in those places where the public have no right of access and are not permitted to have access. This Amendment is for the purpose of providing that safeguard, so that if the public have no right on any particular property the undertakers should not have that liability.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is an important Amendment which, I think, satisfactorily meets the point which we raised. Earlier this afternoon we discussed the definition of the word "street," and in the course of that discussion it became quite clear that this Bill applied to work done by undertakers on land where the public had no right of access—that is to say, on land where there was no public right of way—but that it applied to land where members of the public merely had a licence. It therefore became vitally important, in our opinion, that the requirements as to safety, obstruction, etc., which this Clause lays down for the execution of works should not be limited to those places where the public had a right of passage but should also extend to all those other places to which the public may quite lawfully be allowed to proceed. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting us on this important point in the way he has, and I hope it will prove to be entirely satisfactory.

Mr. Hay: There is one point arising on this Amendment which I think ought to be mentioned. Under the subsection which is being amended, there is a clear provision that the undertakers have to provide certain protection for the public as a whole, and subsection (3) makes contravention of that provision a criminal offence. There is the qualification, to which the Amendment is sought to be added, that if the place can be shown to be one to which the public have no right of access at all, then apparently the undertakers do not commit a criminal offence.
Now it will be rather hard to impose upon undertakers who may be brought before a court and charged with an offence under this Clause the obligation to prove that the particular place in which their operations were being conducted at the

time when someone was injured was a place to which the public had no right of access and were "not permitted to have access," to use the words of the Amendment. I think that is something which the Attorney-General might look at before the next stage, because it will be a pretty heavy burden upon undertakers to have to show that a particular place where they were carrying out their work was not a place to which the public were permitted or had a right of access.

The Attorney-General: This is a very difficult point. I think it would be very hard to find any form of words which would not do an injustice to people who might be injured by the undertakers' works and at the same time not give to undertakers some ready-made excuse, so that they would not need to prove something in court. I will certainly consider the point. I am not anxious to impose criminal liabilities where criminal liabilities ought not to exist. Indeed, I should very much like to think that there were no criminal offences at all in our law; it would make the position of the Attorney-General very much easier.
I cannot quite see how we can meet the point the hon. Gentleman has made without doing injustice to people who, going where they are licensed or permitted to go, have an accident through some default of the undertaker. It would be even more difficult in many cases for them to prove the exact legal status of the land. I should have thought that the undertakers themselves would know the status of the land. After all, they are doing work on it, and presumably they would be in contact with the owner of the land and be able to call upon him in regard to the position of other members of the public on the land. I will look at the point, but I do not want to hold out any promise that I shall find a way of dealing with it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 15, line 22, after "street," to insert "or controlled land."
With your permission, Sir Charles, I think we might discuss at the same time the next Amendment, in line 26, after "street" to insert:
or interference with the normal use of controlled land.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that would be convenient.

Mr. Higgs: Undertakers are required to ensure, in the first place,
that no greater width or length of any street than is reasonably necessary is open or broken up at any one time.
The purpose of the proposed Amendment in line 22 is to extend that provision to controlled land. If it be that, in order to save breaking up a street, excavations are to take place either on the roadside or in the front gardens of houses adjoining the street, or public ground of any kind adjoining the street, surely the owners and occupiers of property on that other land have the right to ensure that there is no greater disturbance of their property than is reasonably necessary.
In the second place undertakers are required to ensure
that there is no greater obstruction of traffic on any street than is reasonably necessary.
If, in order to secure the free passage of traffic on the street, excavations are pushed on to private property or other land, it is surely not unreasonable to ask that there should be no more interference than is reasonably necessary with the normal use of that controlled land.

Mr. Barnes: When these Amendments appeared on the Order Paper, they were so obviously simple and fair that there was no difficulty in accepting them. I am prepared to agree to both Amendments. Obviously, if we lay down a condition with regard to highways, there is no point in penalising the owners of land and establishing a new set of conditions there.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 26, after "street," insert:
or interference with the normal use of controlled land."—[Mr. Higgs.]

Motion made, and Question proposed: That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The point which I am putting may not be a correct one, but I would like an assurance from the Attorney-General that he will give it some consideration. The Attorney-General, in reply to hon. Members opposite, said that it was necessary to have some protection for persons using a street if they had a right of access to it.

Is he satisfied that the Clause gives that protection? Although it imposes a statutory duty, it does not appear to impose a statutory duty in favour of any particular class of persons or make it clear what class of persons is concerned.
He will be familiar with a case of breach of statutory duty recently, where it was decided that one may have a duty to someone, but may escape liability because that duty is not in favour of the particular person suing. He is no doubt familiar with the case which makes a landlord liable in respect of injury caused to a tenant but not to people who have lawful access to the premises but who are not using it in pursuance of any form of legal contract. I ask the Attorney-General, if he has any doubt about the matter, to consider it between now and the Report stage.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has suggested that the Clause should make quite clear that a breach of statutory duty under it would give rise not only to a criminal penalty but to the possibility of an action for damages in the civil courts. I must tell him frankly that that is not a matter which is very clear. This is a very difficult question of law, and questions of policy are also involved. I will look at the point again, and I shall be prepared to give him an opinion to the best of my ability.

Mr. Hale: I am only asking about a case where, by reason of a breach of statutory duty, and not where there is a statutory duty, injury is caused.

The Attorney-General: I appreciate the point. It is a good one, and I will look into it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

6.15 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Clause 10.—(PROTECTION FOR TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Hay: I beg to move in page 17, line 7, after "given," to insert "the transport authority shall and."
It may be convenient for this Amendment to be considered with the following Amendment in line 10, to leave


out "them or it," and insert "such works or reinstatement and making good."
This is a somewhat clumsily drafted Clause, and the purpose of the Amendments is to make its meaning quite unambiguous and clear. As it is, the wording may be misconstrued. The Clause is rather complicated and it is with the object of making it easier to operate that I beg to move the Amendment.

Mr. Barnes: I am not quite sure that I can meet the hon. Member on both his points. It appears to me that the first Amendment would make the passage read that the transport authority shall execute any of the work, whereas what is intended is to put the obligation on the authority to execute all the work. There appears to be a difference between "any" and "all," and I am not sure that I can accept that Amendment at this stage.
With regard to the other Amendment the Parliamentary Counsel does consider that it represents an improvement in the drafting, and I would be prepared to accept it. In view of the fact that the two Amendments are being taken together, I suggest that we might leave these two points, because I do not want to agree to a matter unless I am certain that I am improving the Bill. I will consider it between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Hay: May I add a word to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think that possibly he has not quite appreciated what we had in mind and how we intended the Clause to read with the first Amendment. The Clause as amended would read like this:
and, where notice of such an election is duly given, the transport authority shall and the undertakers shall not ….
perhaps there may be a comma inserted at that point:
execute any of the works or reinstatement ….
We had in mind the placing of the obligation on the transport authority and not leaving it in the air, as I think it is at the moment. As the Minister has suggested that he will consider that point between now and the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 17, line 18, leave out from beginning, to "are," in line 19.

In line 21, after "days," insert "(or, if the works relate only to a service pipe or service line or an overhead telegraphic line, eight days)."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move in page 19, line 22, at the end, to add:
(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding subsection, the transport authority and not the undertakers shall be liable for damages arising from negligence in or nuisance arising from the execution of works or reinstatement and making good by the transport authority and shall be so liable in respect of any failure to reinstate and make good after the election by them so to do has taken effect.
This Amendment, I think, raises a question to which it is not easy to find a correct answer. I am not quite satisfied with the Bill in its present form because I think it leaves this important question, which is rather similar to that raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), a few minutes ago. The Committee will appreciate that under Clause 10 power is given to the transport authority to elect to execute work or to make reinstatements and make good in place of the undertaker. A similar power of election is given in other parts of the Bill to a highway authority, and so we get this position arising. It may arise both with regard to the transport authority and with regard to a highway authority.
The undertaker who has made a hole in the road or made a hole in controlled land will fill it up to a certain level and then the election will be exercised by the transport authority or by the highway authority to complete the reinstatement. It is quite clear that from the provisions in the Bill and of Clause 8, which we have just been considering, that from the moment that election operates, the obligation caused by Clause 8 will be transferred away from the undertaker to the transport authority or highway authority as the case may be. That. I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me is a short, and, I hope, an accurate statement of the position under this Bill.
The point which has not been sufficiently dealt with is the question of civil liability of the undertakers when such a right of election is exercised. I raised this point on Second Reading, because,


if I might criticise the Bill, it seems to me that perhaps too much attention has been paid, particularly in Clause 8, to the creation of statutory obligations without regard to the position under common law and the civil liability of the undertakers, the transport authority, or any other authority concerned. That is a matter to which I drew attention, and it is a matter I want to see put right in the Bill.
The Attorney-General will agree, I think, that we cannot have the position existing that the undertakers should be liable to third parties for injuries arising after the election by the Transport authority or by the highway authority has taken effect. I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that that would be quite wrong. Under a later Clause of his, it is made clear that the statutory duty after the election will rest upon the highway authority, and that the highway authority alone will have the power of making good. That is satisfactory as far as it goes, but I am not at all sure that the mere statement of these statutory duties is sufficient to exclude the common law liability of the undertakers who, after all, have made the hole in the road.
Let me put a purely hypothetical case. The hole is made by the undertakers, the notice of election operating, and it is left unlit. There is a breach of obligation by the transport authority or the highway authority under Clause 8. Is it absolutely clear that under the Bill as it stands, if a third party brought an action against the undertaker, that that action would fail? I am not at all sure that it would. I think that there will have to be put into the Bill some such words as are contained in this Amendment, or some provision whereby, if the undertaker is held liable in a civil court for an action arising out of breach of an obligation or common law duty imposed on the transport authority, there shall be a right of indemnity by the undertakers against the transport authority or the highway authority. I do not think we can leave the common law position up in the air as it is at present, but ought to put in words to make it quite clear that when the right of election has been exercised, all the duties at common law and under statute

are also transferred to the authority exercising that right of election.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) for the very clear way in which he has moved the Amendment. The point which the Amendment raises is an important one. The hon. and learned Member will agree that the real purpose of the Bill is to codify the existing statutory law governing the relations between undertakers, on the one hand, and authorities, on the other, and that its effect is not, in general, to interfere with the common law rights of third parties. I agree at once that the Amendment is very good commonsense, but my own view about the matter is that it also happens to be one of those commonsense matters which is provided for by the common law.
To restate a proposition of the common law by way of an Amendment to this Clause, might result, when it comes to be construed, in the courts assigning some meaning other than that which the hon. and learned Member intends. He knows how it sometimes happens that a Clause is included in a Bill which really does nothing to alter the law, and how the courts, assuming that Parliament intended to alter the law, give the Clause a meaning Parliament never intended it to have. My own view, for what it is worth—and we have had an illustration here today that lawyers are not infallible—is that it is really pretty clear law that if undertakers should be precluded from doing work, as they can be under Clause 10 (1), because of the authority's election, they cannot be held liable for any failure to do it or for any negligence.
The point is covered by express authority in two cases, which I will mention now because the hon. and learned Member may care to look them up between now and Report. I refer to the case of Cressy against the South Metropolitan Gas Company, and the case of Brame against the Commercial Gas Company. Mr. Justice Kennedy and Mr. Justice Horridge both stated that when the authority took over the work the work was out of the hands of the undertakers and they had no liability—in such matters for instance as those the hon. and learned Member put about fencing or lighting to guard the hole the undertakers had made.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Suppose there is a subsidence, and we get the same sort of thing happening after the take-over? It is impossible to establish to whose negligence it was due, or to what cause. I come back to the point of view of the average country solicitor worrying over the case. He has the public authority protection to consider all the time, and if the horse fails at the last fence he is out of time. There is a great deal to be said for making this clear, and I think the Amendment does tend to make it clear.

The Attorney-General: I am not sure it would achieve that result. If negligence occurred before the election, I apprehend that the action would be against the undertaker, but my hon. Friend who is so experienced a solicitor would no doubt communicate with both parties and sue both if they blamed each other, recovering his costs from one or the other. If the negligence occurred after the take-over, there is no liability on the part of the undertakers. The Amendment does no more than assert in the Bill what in my view is already covered by common law.
6.30 p.m.
There is a disadvantage, if one is satisfied that the common law is already adequate in restating it in the Bill. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the two cases to which I have referred between now and the Report stage, he will be satisfied that the proposition embodied in his Amendment is already part of the common law on the authority of those cases. I might add one other point in regard to this question on statutory duties, which I should have dealt with when my hon. Friend raised it on the previous Amendment. Clause 29 (1) expressly provides—I knew it was somewhere in the Bill—that the imposition of a criminal penalty by the Bill shall not negative the possibility of civil liability. On the construction which one sometimes gets in dealing with this question of statutory liability, the provision of a criminal penalty often leads to the conclusion that the statutory obligation is not intended to give rise to civil liability. That now does not arise on this Bill because of the criminal penalties.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. I will certainly

look at and consider the two cases to which he has referred me, but I am still not at all certain that some declaratory Clause of this nature would not be a great help to those infallible lawyers, country solicitors and others who have been mentioned. If I might suggest it, the Clause should start with the well known words, "For the avoidance of doubt." I feel myself that some Clause of that nature would be of assistance to those who tried to assist injured persons when they have claims. While I will certainly look at the matters to which the right hon and learned Gentleman has referred me, I hope he will keep an open mind and perhaps we can have something done on the Report stage if we think it necessary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hay: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the amazing wording in subsection (2). I puzzled through this subsection for the better part of an hour, before I was able to get any kind of connected theme through it. To my mind, the wording is appallingly complicated, and I should be very grateful, as will all who have to operate this Bill when it becomes an Act, if the Minister of Transport would find some fresh wording to explain exactly what is meant. Subsection (4) makes contravention of subsection (2) a criminal offence. Once more we get this point, which has been raised in the course of our Debates this afternoon. I think it is perhaps putting it a bit too high to expect undertakers or even local authorities, with all the wealth, experience and knowledge they have, to be able to see that they are not contravening or are contravening, as the case may be, this extremely difficult collection of words. Will the Minister look at it again and see if between now and the Report stage—I know he has not much time but it may be possible—something could be done to tidy up the wording of this very objectionable provision.

Mr. Barnes: I am all for simplicity, and if the hon. Member, whose desire to simplify this matter I appreciate, would like to improve on the wording—

Mr. Hay: It is not my Bill.

Mr. Barnes: I know it is not the hon. Gentleman's Bill, but all sorts of people have contributed to its making. When the hon. Member is taking part in the Debate he does not hesitate to express his views, and any suggestions which he thinks should be made will be carefully considered.

Mr. Hay: I should be grateful if the hon. Member would give us an explanation of what is actually meant by subsection (2).

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 11.—(PROTECTION FOR SEWER AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 19, line 47, at the end, to insert:
Provided that this subsection shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section (as to election by the sewer authority to execute works themselves).
This Amendment and the three Amendments which follow form a series which looks very formidable on the Order Paper, but what they really come down to is that the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs have made very strong representations to me that, under present legislation, they have the authority to enable them to break into public sewers and charge the undertakers concerned the cost of doing this work. They naturally want these powers to be retained in the Bill. The undertakers, of course, are quite familiar with that procedure, and there is no reason why their request should not be met.
Whilst that is so, it was felt that we should amend Clause 11 to extend the same right to sewer authorities throughout the country. So the Amendment to the Bill, requested by the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs, has an exceedingly strong case behind it, and it was felt that this was the right thing to do generally.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: These Amendments are satisfactory to us, and we think that they constitute an improvement to the Bill. The only criticism I make is a very minor one. In paying his tribute to the originators of this new provision, the right hon. Gentleman omitted all reference to us, and quite recently we pressed his Department rather strongly upon this very same point. I hope that

the other bodies to which he referred will be equally content with what we have done. Although the Amendments are lengthy in character, I do not think there is any reason for the Committee now to take up any further time in considering them, and I express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 9, at end, insert:
Provided that this subsection shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section (as to election by the sewer authority to execute works themselves).

In line 13, at end, insert:
(4) Where code-regulated works include the breaking up or opening of a public sewer, the sewer authority may, by notice given to the undertakers as mentioned in this subsection, elect themselves to execute all or any of the following, that is to say—

(a) the breaking up or opening of the sewer,
(b) reinstatement and making good thereof, and
(c) works rendered necessary as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section,

and, where notice of such an election is duly given, the undertakers shall not execute any of the works or reinstatement and making good specified therein, but the sewer authority shall execute them or it:
Provided that the matters to which this subsection is to apply by virtue of such a notice may be varied by agreement between the sewer authority and the undertakers.
A notice of such an election shall be deemed to have been duly given as to works of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection if the sewer authority had given notice to the undertakers of their desire that the provisions of this subsection should have effect in the case of all works of that kind to be executed in relation to any public sewer of theirs, but in any other case a notice of such an election must be given—

(i) as regards breaking up or opening, or reinstatement and making good, in a case in which the plan and section of the undertakers' works are settled without recourse to arbitration, not later than twenty-nine days from the date on which the plan and section were submitted to the authority;
(ii) as regards breaking up or opening, or reinstatement and making good, in a case in which the plan and section are settled by arbitration, not later than the expiration of fifteen days from the date of the award;
(iii) as regards works rendered necessary as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, at the time of the sewer authority's claiming them to be so rendered necessary by the notice or in the proceedings mentioned in that subsection.



In line 18, at end, add:
or of executing any works or carrying out any reinstatement and making good pursuant to an election under subsection (4) thereof."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 14.—(STORAGE BY STREET AUTHORITY OF EQUIPMENT AT SIDE OF STREET.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 21, line 9, after "authority," to insert:
after the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act.
The Clause is intended to absolve highway authorities from liability for damage they may cause to parts of a highway laid out with grass, such as grass verges, by the storage of rollers and other heavy plant. The Amendment seeks to make it clear that relief from that liability is not to be retrospective, but is to apply only where the damage is caused by plant or material after six months from the passing of the Bill.
There is a further Amendment. Clause 14, at present included in Part I of the Bill, will find a more appropriate place among the Miscellaneous Clauses in Part III. The purpose of the second Amendment is to transfer it from its present place in the code so that it will become Clause 29 of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause, as amended, transferred to the end of line 14, page 41, as Clause 29 of the Bill.—[Mr. Barnes.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 15.—(TIME FOR TAKING EFFECT OF THE STREET WORKS CODE, AND EXCLUSION OF OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is power under subsection (2, b) to make Orders by Statutory Instruments, yet the Bill contains no power to pray against those Statutory Instruments. I ask the Minister to table an Amendment to give us an opportunity of praying against

them. It is not in the least likely that Prayers will be lodged unless there is a great demand for the postponement of an Order or its alteration, but it cannot do any harm to insert such a provision. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider my suggestion favourably, if he will. I hope we shall find the necessary Amendment on the Order Paper for the Report stage.

Mr. Barnes: I will certainly undertake to consider that suggestion as sympathetically as I possibly can, and to make a statement on the Report stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 16.—(AGREEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STREET WORKS CODE TO BE INVALID.)

Amendment made: In page 24, line 3, leave out from "or," to end of line 4.—[Mr. Barnes.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 17.—(EXCLUSION OR RESTRICTIOM OF REQUIREMENTS OF CONSENT AS TO CERTAIN CODE-REGULATED WORKS.)

Amendment made: In page 24, line 17, leave out the second "of," and insert "to."—[Mr. Powell.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 18.—(LIABILITIES OF UNDERTAKERS TO STREET AND BRIDGE AUTHORITIES OR MANAGERS.)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 25, line 44, to leave out "in respect of," and to insert "equal to the."
The wording of the subsection is not adequate to achieve the objects with which it is drafted. The intention is that the whole of the expenses incurred as specified shall be reimbursable in compensation—or so I understand it. The analogy, for example, in page 27, line 31, where we read:
shall pay to the authority an amount equal to the cost reasonably incurred.
strengthens me in that view. I notice, further, that the Minister has in view a similar Amendment later, in page 38, line 8. I gather that a change of wording here would be in accordance with the intentions of the Government.

Mr. Barnes: The Amendment would be an improvement, and I accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hay: Subsection (1) provides that if damage is caused to the property of the street authority or the street managers in the street, the undertakers have to pay compensation. What is to be the compensation in the case of controlled land, where damage is caused to it or to any property which is on the controlled land? Will there be an equal obligation to compensate on the part of the undertakers?

The Attorney-General: Damage resulting from negligence in the execution of the work?

Mr. Hay: Yes.

The Attorney-General: Yes, I understand there will be.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 19.—(LIABILITIES OF UNDERTAKERS TO TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES.)

Amendment made: In page 27, line 10, leave out "interruption of," and insert "interference with."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 21.—(CASES IN WHICH THE CODE IN THIS PART IS TO HAVE EFFECT.)

Amendment made: In page 29, line 23, leave out "in accordance with," and insert "subject to."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 29, line 28, to leave out "such works as the following," and to insert:
of the following works.
This is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I want to say "Thank you" again to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the point that we raised. I think this is a little more than a mere drafting Amendment, because it

makes it clear that the operation of subsection (1, a) is limited to the kind of works stated there, and that it would not include just the re-tarring of the surface.

Mr. Barnes: indicated assent.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 22.—(UNDERTAKERS' RIGHT TO PAYMENT FOR WORKS MADE NECESSARY BY, AND OBLIGATION TO FACILITATE, ROAD, ETC., WORKS.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 30, line 40, after "works," to insert "may."
Perhaps we might at the same time take the next Amendment, in page 31, line 3, after "shall," to insert:
afford to the undertakers reasonable facilities for supervising the execution of the authority's works and shall pay to the undertakers concerned an amount equal to any cost reasonably incurred by them of supervision for which the promoting authority is by this section required to afford facilities and where the execution by the undertakers of any undertaker's works or the taking by them of any other measures is rendered necessary for the purposes aforesaid, the promoting authority "—
for when the two Amendments are taken together, they raise a point of some principle. Under the Bill the undertakers can, when they are going to interfere with the works of a transport authority or a sewer authority, in view of the Amendment which we have now made, be saddled with the cost of supervision incurred by the transport or sewer authority in order to secure that the works of those authorities are not interfered with.
That is obviously right, but what is sauce for the gander is equally sauce for the goose, and the right of supervision at the expense of the executing party does not and should not depend solely upon the question whether the undertaker has the right to break open the works of the authority which seeks to supervise. I know from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that that is a distinction which he seeks to draw. In moving his Amendment with regard to the sewer authority, he based it on the ground that undertakers might have the right in certain cases to break open the sewers and therefore the sewer authorities should have the right of supervision at the undertaker's expense.
But quite apart from the breaking open of a sewer, the question of support for a sewer is of great importance, and equally support for a water main. Where works are to be undertaken in the immediate neighbourhood of a water main, the undertaker concerned—the water company or water board or, if the worst comes to the worst, the nationalised water board—should have the right of supervision. There, again, the undertaker doing the work should be required to pay the reasonable cost. That seems to me to be a reasonable principle.
The same really applies where the work which is being done does not necessarily involve a breaking open of another undertaker's apparatus but involves coming so close to the other undertaker's apparatus that that apparatus may be affected and may subsequently suffer damage. The effect of the two Amendments is to seek to secure that the undertaker whose apparatus, whether it be a water main, an electric wiring box or union, is being approached by the other undertaker which is executing the works shall have the right of supervision at the expense of the authority doing the works.
The right hon. Gentleman has extended the provisions giving the right of supervision at the expense of the undertaker. It was originally given only to the transport authority. We have now decided that it shall be given to sewer authorities. It ought also to go to the water authorities. The simplest way of dealing with it would be to give it to all undertakers whose apparatus is likely to be affected by the works which it is proposed to execute. I know that this is rather a major change, but I think that it would improve the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say "yes" today, I ask him to give this matter further consideration before the Report stage on Friday. It is an Amendment of importance, and in practice it will be found to be desirable.

Mr. Barnes: It was my intention to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was proposing a fairly substantial change, one of those alterations which as I previously indicated would upset the balance of agreement. However, in his concluding words he invited me to examine the project and I will agree to his request to keep the matter open. As he quite rightly pointed out, on the representations of the London County

Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs we extended facilities for them under a previous Amendment. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes me now to consider whether a body like a water board should have equal facilities and, if we propose to go in that direction, whether the proposal in his Amendment would not be the best way of achieving that. As he is prepared to leave the matter open until the Report stage, I undertake to examine the Amendment in the meantime.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Although there is no statutory right of breaking open a water main, I should think that it is vital to see that a water main gets adequate support. An undertaker could bore a tunnel under a water main and deprive it of support and the result might be the breaking of the main. I have in mind the right of supervision being given in a case like that. I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 24.—(TIME FOR TAKING EFFECT OF THE CODE IN THIS PART, AND EXCLUSION OF OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 35, line 4, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 17, and to insert:
in such a case as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section twenty-one of this Act, if the authority's works were substantially begun after, but not if they were so begun before, the following time, that is to say—

(a) the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act unless some corresponding enactment within the meaning of this section, being special legislation making provision in respect of that case, was then in force; or
(b) such time, not being earlier than the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, as the Minister may by order appoint (if the preceding paragraph does not apply by reason of there being some such corresponding enactment as therein mentioned in force at the expiration of the said six months)."

This is a drafting Amendment to make subsection (1) clearer.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 26.—(REQUIREMENTS AS TO UNDERTAKERS' WORKS WHICH ARE LIKELY TO AFFECT OTHER UNDERTAKERS' APPARATUS.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 36, line 40, at the end, to insert "executed."
This Amendment and the two following Amendments are drafting and minor ones. They make it clear that the Clause will come into operation six months after the Bill is passed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 36, line 41, after "land," insert:
in exercise of a statutory power or of such a power together with an authorisation given under the First Schedule to this Act, other than works which have been substantially begun before the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act.

In line 44, at the end, insert:
being apparatus maintainable under a statutory power or under such a power together with an authorisation given under the First Schedule to this Act."—[Mr. Barnes.]

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 37, line 9, to leave out "three," and to insert "eight."

Clause 26 deals with the various sorts of works which are likely to affect the apparatus of other undertakers, and under subsection (2) there is a provision that those undertakers have to give three days' notice of their proposed work. We on this side of the Committee feel that the period is too short, and when one bears in mind that discussions are going on and plans are being drawn up, it seems to us unnecessarily short. The intention of this Amendment is to increase the period to eight days, which we consider to be the reasonable minimum period for a letter, for some consideration of the matter to be given at the other end, and for a reply to be prepared and returned.

The Attorney-General: This provision as to notice is for the mutual protection of the undertakers concerned and for nothing else, and the undertakers all agreed to three days' notice. The hon. Member may think that there is no

reason, as they do not themselves recommend longer notice, to encourage dilatory proceedings on the part of these undertakers; and now that the undertakers are largely nationalised, they may be expected to work with expedition and efficiency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I suggest, at all events, that it would be unwise to give them a longer period than they themselves require. Having regard to the observations so well made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) in regard to this Bill, matters of this kind having been the subject of express agreement between the undertakers, I hope that the hon. Member will not think it necessary in the public interest to interfere with the period which they thought sufficient and appropriate.

Mr. Hay: Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the fact that most of these undertakers are now nationalised, the thought has gone through my mind that we might have made a mistake in putting down "eight" instead of "eighty," knowing the speed at which some of them work. However, since the point has obviously been considered carefully by everyone who has had anything to do with this Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 38, line 8, to leave out "in respect of," and to insert "equal to the."
This is a drafting Amendment on a matter which we have already considered, and it secures consistency.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 27.—(POWER TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT TRAFFIC ON GROUND OF EXECUTION OF WORKS, AND LIABILITY OF UNDERTAKERS FOR COST OF USE OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE.)

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 39, line 1, to leave out subsections (2) and (3).
This is an interesting little sidelight on the Bill. The proposal contained in this subsection is, in effect, that if some undertaker carries out such works on a main road that the whole road has to be closed and traffic has to find its way round by


side roads, the undertakers whose works have caused that main road to be closed should be responsible for strengthening the latter road in so far as strengthening is done with a view to, and is necessary for, the traffic in question and the making good of any damage to it.
We have to imagine that a length of main road is blocked up and that main road traffic has to find its way round, heavy vehicles being involved. It seems unfair that the undertakers, or whoever is digging up the main road, should be made responsible if a heavy vehicle is diverted to a particular lane, one of many which may be available, and breaks through a bridge because the vehicle is too heavy. The liability may go a great deal further than is fair, and the undertakers responsible for the work on the main road may find their responsibilities stretching far and wide into the country on either side. Therefore, if some such provision as this is to be inserted to protect the highway authority from having to do extensive repairs to side lanes which are damaged, we should at least recast the subsection in such a way that they share the responsibility for directing traffic as to which lanes it is to use so as to keep the possible damage to minor roads to a minimum.

Mr. Barnes: If I followed the argument of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) correctly, he did not dispute the principle that if traffic is diverted through the work of any undertaker, that undertaker should meet the cost of any highway expenditure thereby incurred. The hon. Member's main anxiety appeared to be that it should be reasonable and should not be increased by the carelessness or indifference of the highway or traffic authorities as to the type, weight and load of the traffic that might move over a thoroughly unsuitable road.
While I am unable to accept the Amendment because it would upset a carefully-negotiated arrangement between the highway authorities and the undertakers, this is a problem which departmentally we keep strictly under review. Whenever there is a diversion, particular care is exercised to see that the county highway authorities or the local highway authorities and my own departmental engineers, in consultation with the police and with the motoring associations, cover any diversion of traffic, whether for that or for

any other purpose. We do this most carefully because we have the major interest in not damaging the structure or surface of the roads.
While I ask the hon. Member not to press his Amendment, I do not want him to think that it is because I am indifferent to the purpose he has in mind. On the contrary, I am keenly interested in that aspect of the problem, and departmentally we keep in touch in every way with the highway authorities to safeguard the matter. All highway authorities, particlarly the central Department, are so impressed at the moment with the general inadequacy of our road system for modern transport that we should be the last to see that roads were broken up through negligence, whether the cost fell on the undertaker or on anybody else. So I hope the hon. Member will accept that general assurance.

Mr. Higgs: I cannot resist that full assurance and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 39, line 17, to leave out from "subsection," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
the order of classification of roads, from higher to lower, shall be taken to be the following, that is to say, trunk roads, classified roads (in the order of the Classes I, II and III respectively subsisting at the passing of this Act, or, if other classes are constituted thereafter, in such order as the Minister may declare), and roads being neither trunk roads nor classified roads.
This Amendment is designed to meet the request of the County Councils Association for a wider classification of roads and also to meet any adjustment which the Ministry of Transport may make from time to time in the number of classified roads. The existing five classifications are established, and the County Councils Association wished the matter to be left open so that if at any time in their negotiations with my Department another classification should be added, it would be covered by the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 39, line 21, at the end, to add:
(4) This section shall come into operation at the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act.


Whilst this is in essence a drafting Amendment, it deals with the question of the six months' period.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 28.—(RESTRICTION ON BREAKING UP BY UNDERTAKERS OF MAINTAINABLE HIGHWAYS RECENTLY CLOSED OR RE-SURFACED.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 40, line 4, to leave out "begun in the highway before," and to insert:
in progress in the highway on.
"This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 40, line 18, after "line," to insert "or an overhead electric line."
A request for the inclusion of this provision has been received through the Ministry of Fuel and Power from the British Electricity Authority, in order that their overhead electric lines may benefit from the provisions of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 40, line 18, to leave out from "line," to "or," in line 21.
This is an admirable Clause which provides that there should not be too much breaking up of streets shortly after work has been done and re-surfacing has taken place. My Amendment is designed mainly to secure from the Government an explanation of what appears to me to be some discrimination in the case of service pipes or service lines. It will be seen from the wording of subsection (3), with which I am concerned, that it is not applicable to
breaking up or opening a part of the highway other than the carriageway for the purposes of—

(a) works relating only to a service pipe or service line or an overhead telegraphic line, but"—

now come the words whose meaning I want to ascertain— 
in the case of a placing of a service pipe or a service line, only if it is for affording a supply or service to premises to which it was not previously afforded.
There might easily be circumstances where a service pipe or service line

became seriously out of order, and where this became apparent after the period of a year had begun to run. It might be necessary, therefore, for work to be done to it, yet that work in itself might not necessarily come within the classification or category of emergency works, as they are referred to in the Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the reason for this distinction which the subsection contains. If there is no adequate reason for it, possibly he may consider not opposing the Amendment and deleting that part of the subsection.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I understand that the reason for this limitation is the result of negotiations between the highway authorities and the undertakers. It appears that, without some such limitation, service pipe work and the breaking up of highways could proceed, especially in the new development areas, to an almost unlimited extent. Therefore, as a result of the negotiations between the bodies, it was agreed that only a service pipe or service line works to afford a supply of service to premises not already supplied should be excepted from the prohibition imposed by Clause 28 (1). The suggested Amendment would make the exception far too wide and would destroy the limitation agreed upon in the negotiations.
I will look at this point before the Report stage, but I do not think that the hon. Member would wish to press the matter to a point of issue if there is substantial agreement between the highway authorities and the undertakers upon it. After all, the undertakers would not agree to anything which would limit unduly the providing of their services, nor would the highway authority be likely to press a point of this nature, because they are always anxious for people to be supplied with the kind of services in question.

Mr. Hay: I certainly will not press the matter. I wanted only to make the point and to find out whether the Government had had it in mind. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 40, line 21, to leave out "was not previously," and to insert "is not already."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 29.—(PROVISIONS AS TO ENFORCEMENT.)

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 41, line 24, to leave out from "taken," to the end of line 25.
This is a point which has some considerable importance in connection with the Bill. I should like to know, first, why the Clause has no definition of who is
an authority, body or person having an interest in the performance of the obligation.
The Clause provides that where proceedings are considered for the enforcement of any of the obligations or liabilities which may be in the Bill, no proceedings can be taken without the consent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman except where there is
an authority, body or person having an interest …
I should like to know from the Government what they mean by that, and who is to decide who is
an authority, body or person having an interest.
It might easily mean, for example, a frontager or a shopkeeper, who might say that he has an interest in the maintenance of the road immediately outside his shop. I should be grateful for some explanation.

The Attorney-General: The effect of this Amendment would be that no prosecution could take place without the consent of the Attorney-General. I am not particularly anxious to add greatly to the labours of my Department, which is already very overburdened with work and understaffed with assistance; but, on broader grounds, I am on the whole not anxious that the category of cases in which prosecutions can only take place with the consent of the Attorney-General should be increased.
There are certain classes of cases where the risk of frivolous and unnecessary prosecution is so considerable that Parliament have thought it wise to say there should be no prosecution without the consent of the Attorney-General, or in

some cases the Director of Public Prosecutions, and there are some cases where such important constitutional questions arise, or such important matters of public interest are involved, that Parliament has thought it desirable that the sole responsibility for prosecution should rest with the Attorney-General. I hardly think that could be said of the class of prosecution which would arise under this Bill.
The ordinary position is that the criminal law can be enforced by anybody, the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police, or any private citizen who feels moved to invoke it. I think that that should remain the normal position in our law. The fact that that is the normal position results in this, that in those cases the Attorney-General does not intervene to direct a prosecution unless he is satisfied that in all the circumstances the public interest, including in that the interests of justice, make it desirable that the criminal law should be invoked.
In the present case we thought there was perhaps a danger that there might be frivolous prosecutions about these matters by so-called common informers and people who had no real concern in the matter at all—mere busybodies seeking to make trouble—and it was provided that prosecutions by those persons should require the consent of the Attorney-General. But I think it would be going rather too far, and I hope the Committee will agree to say that no one should be entitled to prosecute without the consent of the Attorney-General. We therefore provide in this Clause that where the prosecution was brought by an interested party, someone concerned in enforcing the obligations of the Measure, not a mere busybody but someone really concerned in the matter, he might initiate criminal proceedings, which form one of the sanctions to the obligations which the Bill lays down, without going to the Attorney-General first.
By the phrase, "interested authority" we mean authorities, or managers, or other parties whose relations are governed by the Bill. For instance, in some cases dealing with the question of controlled land it might involve the owner of the land, but in other cases it would only be a matter as between one undertaker and a highway authority, or


perhaps between undertaker and undertaker. Whether the prosecution had been properly commenced by an interested party would be a question of fact which, in the last resort, the court would decide. The defendant could take the objection that the information had been laid without the consent of the Attorney-General and that the authorities on whose behalf it was laid were not interested in the sense which the Measure contemplates.
It is difficult to define it more strictly than that, but that is the intention of the Clause. 1 quite appreciate the point made by the hon. Member on the definition of "interested party" but, having heard my explanation of that, and my general submission in regard to the broader aspects of the Attorney-General's consent being required in cases of this kind, I hope he will find he need not press the Amendment.

Mr. Hay: I entirely agree that it is undesirable that there should be an absolute blanket prohibition unless the Attorney-General consents first, but I thought the wording was somewhat inadequate because it does not say definitely who is to decide this important point of whether an individual is an interested party. Having made the point I do not wish to press it unduly and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 41, line 26, to leave out subsection (3).
No doubt the Attorney-General will recollect the arguments he advanced at an earlier stage which I hope can be applied very persuasively by us on this occasion with a view to getting his acceptance to the proposition I shall advance. I imagine subsection (3) of this Clause is merely intended to apply to the Post Office, but I should be interested to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say whether the exclusion from the operation of this Bill is intended to apply to any other "authority, body or person on behalf of the Crown."
This is a very wide exclusion Clause. If it is meant to apply to any other "authority, body or person" what sort of "authority, body or person on behalf of the Crown"? The Central Land Board has many activities, but I cannot

see the Central Land Board being one of those authorities in question. I have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, through reading the Bill, that this subsection is meant only to apply to the Post Office. If that is so, why not say so?
The second point for consideration is whether this Bill really should not apply to the Post Office. I know the difficulties the right hon. and learned Gentleman advanced about the prosecution of the Crown against the Crown, but the Post Office is one of the biggest diggers of holes in our highways. If the Post Office is to be excluded from all the liabilities created by this Bill for breaches of obligations imposed by this Bill, I can quite well imagine that this vast Measure, detailed, complicated and not easy to understand, will not be called the Public Utilities Street Works Bill, but will be known commonly, at least in the Post Office, as the Public Futilities Bill. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to make out a strong case, if there is a case, for the retention of this exclusion Clause, but I should be much more content if he could tell me that not only will this Bill apply to industries recently nationalised, but to the Post Office as well.

The Attorney-General: I am very glad the hon. and learned Member by his suggested new title for this Bill—which I notice he has not put down in the form of an actual Amendment—has been able to introduce a note of humour in our discussions of this beneficent, but otherwise very boring piece of legislation. The Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put down runs counter to what has hitherto always been accepted as the constitutional position of the Crown in relation to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.
7.30 p.m.
The Clause is intended to preclude not only the Post Office although of course the Post Office is in practice the most important case. But earlier this afternoon we had the case of the Minister of Fuel and Power who, in relation to his powers in dealing with Government pipe-line, is a statutory undertaker. I think there may be some cases where the Minister of Transport is an authority, and one or two cases where the Minister of Supply or the Minister of Works may be an undertaker.


But the principle which the Bill seeks to maintain is that the Crown, as represented by the different Ministers, is not liable to prosecution at the suit of the Crown in the courts of the Crown. It would introduce a most odd constitutional anomaly if the Crown were to be made liable in its own courts and at the suit of its own prosecutors.
As was indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, in practice, so far as Government Departments are concerned, the one most concerned with opening up—and later reinstating—holes in the road is the Post Office. But nationalised industries, gas and electricity and so on, although nationalised, are not emanations of the Crown and are given no protection whatever against prosecution. The Central Land Board, I apprehend, would not be an undertaker or authority for the purposes of this Bill. What are its precise powers is sometimes a matter of legal dispute, but it would not be an emanation of the Crown for the purposes of this subsection.
The effect of the subsection is simply to ensure the maintenance of what is a traditional and not unimportant constitutional principle, that the Crown is not liable to criminal proceedings. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will see fit to withdraw his Amendment, bearing in mind that additional point which I made earlier before the Committee, that the effect of criminal proceedings against the Crown would be inevitably illusionary, since the payment of any fine now goes to the Crown.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The last argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not really so very persuasive. It would appear that the effect of fining any one of these nationalised industries, gas, electricity or transport, merely means that the great British public have to find the money in one way or another. But I am glad to have received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman an explanation of the reason why it is desired to retain subsection (3). While I hope that the Post Office will in fact always fulfil all the obligations imposed under this Measure, and so would never have run the risk of paying a fine, I beg to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 32.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 42, line 41, at the end, to insert:
other than, in the case of the Postmaster-General, any such expenses as are defrayed out of money for the raising of which provision is made by the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1950, or by any other enactment.

Clause 32 deals with financial provisions, and this Amendment is intended to enable the Post Office to defray the expenses under the Bill, either by loan moneys authorised by Parliament or by the Post Office Vote.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 33.—(NOTICES, ETC., AND RECKONING OF PERIODS.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 44, line 4, after "some," to insert "responsible."

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that all the proposed Amendments to this Clause may be discussed together; namely, in the same line, after the first "person," to insert "residing"; to leave out from "no," to "to," in line 5, and to insert "such person," and after second "person," to insert "residing."

The Attorney-General: The Amendment was put down as a result of representations, and indeed Amendments put on the Order Paper, by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I must confess that I have always been a little anxious about the provision which one does in fact see in a great many Statutes that service may be made upon any person on the premises. There are innumerable precedents for that. Some of them are recent precedents where Parliament has thought it was enough that process should be served on any person who happened to be on the premises at the time, whether it was the milkman or the man who comes to collect the money from the gas meter—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Or a man coming to serve another notice.

The Attorney-General: —or a man coming to serve another notice. We came to the conclusion that these words were a little wide and we seek to qualify them by putting in the word "responsible." It would be difficult to use the word "residing," since it would involve inquiries as to the position of the person who was served. We came to the conclusion that the better word was "responsible." Frankly, where precarious service of this kind is permitted at all, I think it difficult to find an ideal form of words to ensure that there is never service on somebody who fails to bring the matter to the notice of the person really concerned with it; but we think that "responsible" meets the case. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree and will not press his own Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is not the first occasion on which I have sought to secure some alteration of the almost common-form Clause providing for service of a notice, which might relate to a matter of great importance, on any person on the premises. At last my efforts have met with a degree of success, and I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for going so far as he has done; but I think that the word I selected "residing," so as to make it service on some person residing on the premises, has certain attractions over the word "responsible."
After all, it will not be easy to prove that a good service has in fact been made by satisfying the court that the person who was handed the notice was a "responsible" person, whatever that may mean. In the eyes of Conservatives, a number of Socialists would not be considered responsible, and perhaps vice versa. What is the interpretation of the word "responsible" in this connection? That will probably be a matter of some argument. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that perhaps, after all, it would be best to take both words and put:
responsible person residing on the premises.
If there is anyone on the premises, the occupancy is pretty easy to ascertain. Even if it is purely temporary, the remedy is easy—one merely affixes the notice. I have never seen the objection to making the first part rather more definite

than it has been in the past. If one cannot find there anyone on whom to serve the notice, one is justified in affixing a notice to the premises, and it is easy to do so.
There is a case for making the first part a little stronger. Residence is not difficult to ascertain. A man can say "Someone opened the door of the premises, I asked him if he was living there, he said 'Yes,' so I gave him the notice." That is a little more easy to determine than mere responsibility. If one cannot find anyone residing on the premises, one is entirely justified in affixing a notice to some conspicious part of the premises. It is often done by sticking a post in a field and fastening a board to the post. I ask the Attorney-General to give further thought to the point before next Friday, in the hope that we can still make some slight improvement to the provision.

The Attorney-General: Certainly. I am not altogether happy about it. The difficulty about using the word "residence" might arise in the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman put to me. One may go to the premises and ask the person on whom one proposes to serve the notice whether he lives there. He might say "Yes" when he is only a visitor or merely spending the week-end there, and one would find that service was bad. If the test was "responsible," that danger would not be quite so great. I do not altogether like the word "responsible." I do not know whether it means responsible in the sense of the hon. and learned Member's example—as all Members of the Labour Party are—or responsible in the matter in question, having some responsibility towards the person on whom the notice should be served. I cannot promise that we will alter the provision, but we will look at it again.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am much obliged.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 44, line 4, leave out from "no," to "to," in line 5, and insert "such person."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 35.—(APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 44, line 42, to leave out from "accordingly," to "a," in line 43, and to insert:
for any reference to a private sewer or a drain within the meaning of the Public Health Act, 1936, there shall be substituted a reference to a sewer or.
This is a Scottish application drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Powell: Perhaps I might seek your guidance, Sir Charles, before we add this Clause to the Bill. There is a subsequent Amendment tabled to the First Schedule which, if the Committee agree to it, would involve an alteration to the Scottish application in this Clause. In adding this Clause to the Bill, are we keeping the issue on the First Schedule open for discussion?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes. We shall discuss that point on the Amendment in page 52, line 15, to leave out from the beginning, to "is," in line 18.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Clause 37.—(INTERPRETATION (GENERAL).)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 50, line 8, at the end, to insert:
'reinstatement and making good' includes interim restoration as defined in the Third Schedule to this Act.

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 50, line 31, at the end, to insert:
so however that works executed by a statutory corporation shall not be treated as executed in exercise of a statutory power by reason only of the corporation's having statutory authorisation in that behalf for the purposes of the law relating to the capacity of such corporations, and references in this Act to a statutory power to execute works shall be construed accordingly.
This also is a drafting Amendment. As at present drawn, the definition of statutory power and undertakers' street works is so wide that it might include mining operations thousands of feet below

the street although they do not affect the highway at all. The object of this Amendment is to deal with that case.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 38.—(SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 51, line 24, to leave out subsection (3).
This Bill was originally introduced in another place. Therefore, to protect the Privilege it had to contain Clause 38 to cover financial provisions of the Bill. It is now necessary to remove this Privilege provision, and the purpose of this Amendment is to accomplish that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(PROTECTION FOR TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES (SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS IN EXECUTION OF CERTAIN WORKS.))

(1) Undertakers executing any code-regulated works in a street which crosses or is crossed by, or is in the vicinity of, a railway, dock, harbour, pier, canal or inland navigation, shall comply with any reasonable requirements made to them by the authority having the management thereof for providing against the displaying of lights so as to involve risk of their being mistaken for any signal light or other light used for controlling, directing or securing the safety of traffic thereon or being a hindrance to the ready interpretation of any such signal or other light.

(2) Undertakers executing any code-regulated works at a crossing of a railway on the level shall comply with any reasonable requirements as to the arrangements for executing the works, in respect of hours of work or in any other respect, which are made to them by the authority having the management of the railway undertaking for securing the safety of persons employed in connection with the works or for securing that interference with traffic on the railway caused by the execution thereof is reduced so far as is practicable; and, in the case of any such works of which seven or three days' notice to the authority is required under section six of this Act but submission to them of a plan and section is not required, the undertakers shall defer beginning them for such further period as the authority may reasonably request as needed for formulating their requirements or making their traffic arrangements.

(3) If undertakers fail to satisfy an obligation to which they are subject by virtue of either of the preceding subsections, they shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.—[Mr. Barnes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is largely a transport Clause. The British Transport Commission have drawn my attention to a number of points which I think the Committee wish to safeguard. In the first place, they point out that any lights which undertakers carrying out street works either near a railway or a canal or some inland navigation place might exhibit, such as red lamps, could easily be misleading and interfere with road signalling and safety arrangements. They wish the necessary safeguards to be inserted, and the first subsection of the new Clause meets that position.
The British Transport Commission also consider that where undertakers' works are carried on or near a railway level-crossing, that adds to the risks that can be incurred at such places. They think it is only right that the railways should make the necessary provisions for the safety and control of the railway traffic over the level crossing. This new Clause makes provision for that protection. Subsection (3), is a penalty provision in the event of undertakers failing to satisfy the obligations placed upon them by the Clause.

Mr. Powell: There are two points I wish to put to the Minister about this Clause. The first relates to the words:
securing the safety of persons employed in connection with the works ….
It occurs to me that the requirements which the railway undertaking might make upon the undertakers executing the code-regulated works might have regard not only to the safety of persons employed in connection with the works but of persons employed in the railway undertaking or of persons travelling on the railway. I wonder whether those requirements have not been inadvertently overlooked.
I appeal to the Minister to look again at the really atrocious drafting of the last four and a half lines of subsection (2), in which, for example, the word "them" refers, in the two places where it occurs, to different things. I suggest that it should not be difficult to tidy up that last part of the subsection, which, speaking for the moment as a textual critic, I would conjecture was added by a later hand.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(REFERENCES TO PROPERTY HELD OR USED FOR TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS, AND TO POWERS FOR RAILWAY OR TRAMWAY PURPOSES.)

(1) References in this Act to a street which crosses or is crossed by property held or used for the purposes of a transport undertaking extend to cases in which the street and the property in question are at different levels as well as to cases in which they are on the same level, but the transport authority shall not be treated as an authority concerned as regards undertakers' works in such a street, or be entitled to elect themselves to execute any of them, where the property in question consists only of—

(a) subsoil of the street, or land under it, which is held by the transport authority but is not used, and has not been adapted for use, for the purposes of the undertaking, or
(b) property underground at such a depth that there is no reasonable possibility of the works' affecting it;

and the Fourth Schedule to this Act (which requires notice and settling of specifications in connection with transport works which affect apparatus of undertakers) shall not apply where the property in which such works are to be executed is underground at such a depth that there is no reasonable possibility of their affecting the apparatus in question.
(2) The provisions of this Act relating to a street which crosses or is crossed by property held or used for the purposes of a transport undertaking shall apply to a street which is or forms part of a towing-path or other way running along a canal or inland navigation, being a path or way which, or the subsoil of which, is held or used for the purposes of the canal or inland navigation undertaking.
(3) References in this Act to a power conferred for purposes of a railway undertaking or a tramway undertaking include references to a power conferred primarily for those purposes but for other purposes also, and references therein to works, or to apparatus held or used, for purposes of a railway undertaking or a tramway undertaking, or for purposes of a railway undertaking, shall be construed in like manner.—[Mr. Barnes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a Second time."
This new Clause has been put down in order to meet the position of transport authorities. Under Clause 2 (1, c), transport authorities are entitled to the protection of the Street Works Code where the proposed works cross or are crossed by any other property. It has been pointed out to me that, in the case of a canal, the road or the street works may not cross the canal, but may occur on the tow-path which is the property of the transport undertaking running alongside the canal. This new Clause meets a problem of that character.
With regard to the second difficulty, where a transport authority is concerned in such street work, it will, according to the established rule of law, own the subsoil under part of the street fronting its premises. In this case, it is not considered that the transport authority is in any way different from a householder, who may own the subsoil under the street in front of his house. Therefore, it is provided that the transport authority shall not be able to claim the protection of the Street Works Code in respect of undertakers' works done in any street running over subsoil owned by the transport authority.
The third part of the new Clause is designed to cure a defect in Clause 1. Some transport authorities, like the London Passenger Transport Executive have, in their general powers, express powers to lay pipes and cables in streets, and this part of the Clause accordingly provides for that situation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(DEFINITION OF "CONTROLLED LAND," AND PROVISIONS AS TO AUTHORISATION OF WORKS THEREIN.)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 52, line 15, to leave out from the beginning to "is," in line 18.
When this Bill received its Second Reading earlier in the year, I ventured to draw attention to the extraordinarily wide extension given to this concept of "controlled land" by paragraph (b) of the First Schedule, to which this Amendment relates. There is general agreement that the provision whereby apparatus can be laid alongside a street in land which does not involve breaking up the surface of the street, is a generally beneficial one, and we are all agreed that, in the example given by the Minister on Second Reading, when he spoke of the verges of the main roads being used for this purpose, there was a clear advantage in using "controlled land" in that sense, as the site of the apparatus. On the other hand, the possible extension of "controlled land" which results from paragraph (b) in the first part of this Schedule is open to very grave objection.
May I remind the Committee of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

Act, 1947, to which reference is here made? Under the terms of that Act, the whole of the country must, by the middle of next year, be covered by development plans, which must show areas which the planning authorities consider should be liable to compulsory acquisition for various purposes, one of these being road purposes, which is relevant in this case.
I realise—and I am grateful to the Minister for having courteously drawn my attention to this—that, in order to become "controlled land" under this paragraph, the land concerned must not only be designated for road purposes in one of these development plans, but must also abut upon a street which is a maintainable highway. In practice, that will mean a strip of land running parallel to a maintainable highway which is regarded as being eventually desirable for the widening of the highway. The mere fact that such a strip of land has been so designated in the development plan does not, in my opinion, justify us in treating it as "controlled land" within the meaning of the Schedule. These areas can be designated, redesignated and even redesignated again in the successive quinquennial editions of the town and country plans.
The designation, once approved by the Minister, is subject to only one check, namely, the right of the owner after 12 years, or in the case of agricultural land after eight years, to enforce compulsory acquisition. But there will undoubtedly be throughout the country great tracts of land designated for compulsory acquisition for various purposes, including road purposes, which will not, in fact, be used for those purposes for decades, and, in many cases, will never be used at all, because, in the course of time, the plans will be either changed or scrapped.
Is it right, therefore, that, with that background and simply because a strip of land has been designated in a development plan as the sort of land which it might be desirable to acquire compulsorily some day for road widening, it should be possible for local authorities, merely by serving notices under this paragraph, to bring such land within the definition of controlled land? There will always be uncertainty, because local authorities and statutory undertakers will always be in doubt about what sort of weight they are to attach to development plans, and what degree of likelihood there is of the land being actually required for


the purpose for which it is designated. In the second place, the amount of unnecessary and abortive expenditure will be greatly multiplied.
I think the object in view will be achieved by the Amendment which I am proposing, which is to leave out the first part of this paragraph, and to restrict the conception of "controlled land" under this heading to land the compulsory acquisition of which has actually been authorised, and which is within measurable distance of being used for these purposes. In these cases, the whole object is achieved. It is only when that authorisation has been given that we are justified in allowing the street authority to treat the designated land as controlled land. It is only then that there is no serious risk of abortive expenditure due to subsequent changes being made.
It may be argued: "Supposing that the land was never acquired, what harm would be done if pipes had been laid parallel to the road instead of under the road? Is it not a good thing, even supposing that the land remains agricultural land for 50 or 100 years? What is the harm in having laid the apparatus in a field inside a hedge instead of underneath the road?" That, I think, misses the point. In any case, we are only dealing with land which is designated for acquisition for road purposes.
In drafting this Schedule the Government have regarded the fact that this land is, some day, to be part of a road as the sole justification for treating it in the meantime as "controlled land." I submit, therefore, that the Government's object is attained and that the dangers which I have outlined are avoided if "controlled land" is restricted to land for which compulsory acquisition for road purposes has already been authorised.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I entirely agree with all my hon. Friend has said in moving this Amendment and I do not wish to repeat anything that he has said on that point. The First Schedule contains one of the most important elements in this Bill. It is here that we find the definition of "controlled land" and the procedure whereby authority can be given for the laying of pipes and other undertakers' work off the street in land

where, apart from this Bill, there is at present no right to lay them.
Therefore, by this First Schedule, as I understand it, we are creating a fresh power—something that does not exist already—in the hands of the undertakers, at the request of the highway authorities it may be, of in one sense invading private property and the rights of private occupiers. Clause 1 (1) of the Bill makes it quite clear that the land must abut a street which is either
a maintainable highway or is prospectively a maintainable highway ….
It is also made quite clear that the land may be controlled
in whatsoever use the land is for the time being, not excepting use as or as part of a garden or pleasure ground or the curtilage of a building ….
If I understand this Bill correctly, it is not right to regard the verges of a highway as "controlled land" because the ordinary grass verge of a highway between the two fences is already part of the highway. Therefore, these powers with regard to "controlled land" are not necessary for laying pipes and sewers on the grass verges as is so frequently and so rightly done today. But this power of laying in "controlled land" will obviously not be exercised where there are those grass verges and where it is not intended to make a substantial extension of the width of the highway. A more likely place would appear to me to be in the suburbs of our big towns and not so much in the open country where usually there is a wide grass verge. It is more likely to be in the suburbs and the approaches to the big towns where television cables and water mains are brought in, such as in Watling Street.
What is going to be the "controlled land" there? It must surely be the front gardens of the suburban houses. Power is expressly taken to use that land however it is being used for the time being. It may be that the land was designated under a plan made by a planning authority as land required for road purposes; that we have as controlled land, land through which a pipe may be laid, land upon which there is actually a dwelling-house. But, notwithstanding the fact that there is a dwelling-house upon that land, power is taken by this Schedule to bore underneath the house and to lay pipes and other undertakers' works under


the house. While I agree that power must be taken to lay in "controlled land," it is a power over the exercise of which one ought obviously to take very great care, and we in this House of Commons have a duty to see that no greater power than necessary is taken.
I understand that a working party has been considering this matter, a working party on which were representatives of the Ministry, the highway authorities and the statutory undertakers. I do not think that on that working party were any representatives of the private occupiers, the people who will be living alongside these streets and whose amenities will be affected by someone coming along and digging up the rock garden in front of the house because they wish to put down a drain. When the rock garden is put back and is again looking very nice, along will come someone else and up will come the rock garden once more.
It may be that in certain circumstances that sort of thing should happen, but we ought not to give that right of interfering with other people's amenities in such situations solely on the strength of the land being designated under Section 5 (2, b) of the Town and Country Planning Act. I do not believe that the designation procedure is adequate for giving proper opportunities for objection by the owners and occupiers of the small dwelling-houses most likely to be affected.
I believe I am right in reading this Schedule to mean that unless the occupier or owner of the land objects to designation, and succeeds in his objection, all power of objection to the land being authorised for use as "controlled land" will be gone. That may be satisfactory to one or other association, or to a member of a working party who think that Members of Parliament exist to carry out the conclusions of working parties. Although that may be satisfactory to that member of the working party it does not seem to me to be right so far as the individual is concerned.
I hope I have made my view clear. I think that what my hon. Friend has sought to leave out should be left out, and I am sure that all that is required to be done can be done under Section 33, paragraph (c) of the Public Health Act, 1935. People ordinarily know where lines are relating to their properties. They can make objections. They usually get to

know of it very quickly, but I doubt very much whether the ordinary occupant of a small house on the edge of one of our cities will ever be informed in time that his land has been designated as land subject to compulsory acquisition by the street authority for road purposes; and if he fails to be aware of that fact in time, then, I fear, the consequence may be that, without his having any opportunity of objecting, he will find the amenities of his house substantially interfered with.

Mr. Barnes: In considering this proposal I think we want to be clear first of all what constitutes "controlled land" under the First Schedule, and the facilities or the opportunities that highway authorities have of achieving their purpose. First of all, the highway authorities can buy the necessary land for their purpose alongside the road, or they can designate that, under Section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as land subject to compulsory acquisition by the street authority. I take it that this is the part that the hon. and learned Gentleman is objecting to. Or they can take steps under Section 33 of the Public Health Act, 1925.
I do not dispute that, from the point of view of the purposes of a highway authority, the first and the third of the proposals which I have referred to can still, to a very large extent, meet the purposes which I have under this Bill, but I feel that I must submit to the Committee the very strong views that the highway authorities have on a proposal of this kind. They make me very reluctant to accept this Amendment.
I should like the Committee, as it ought, to give full consideration to the views and the case of the highway authorities. Of course, it is very easy to dismiss the views of a highway authority in dealing with matters of this kind under the blanket provisions—if that term is preferred—of the Town and Country Planning Act. Nevertheless, administratively, undoubtedly, it proves to be of very great convenience to the highway authorities, and, I believe, is a much less expensive process, and the tendency, at least in recent years, has been for them to turn more and more to this procedure, and less and less to Section 33 of the Public Health Act, 1925. Therefore, I think we must face the fact that if the


Committee does delete this provision it, to that extent, would reverse a process that has been developing lately.
It appears to me that the Amendment would seriously weaken the appeal of the First Schedule to the highway authorities. If that is the case, I have to face the fact that they may not use the provisions for the purpose of the First Schedule to the extent that I would wish them to do. In my view it is very important that wherever it is possible—I do not mean to the extent of causing considerable and wholesale inconvenience to residents on the site of a highway—but where it is practicable it is very desirable that pipes and mains and apparatus as much as possible should be laid along the grass verges of the controlled land rather than that ther should be digging up of the highway with the inconvenience it would cause to traffic. I should very much regret it if we did anything in this Bill that would weaken the highway authorities' progress in this direction.
Therefore, I feel inclined to ask hon. Gentlemen to see if they could avoid pressing this Amendment. I quite clearly recognise that I have succeeded in getting this Bill to the present stage by a policy of give and take and compromise, and I should not like, in the final stages of the Bill, to develop a conflict in this Committee that even now could endanger my getting the Bill. I realise that we have been asking a lot from the Committee in asking it to pass this stage of the Bill, when there are so many Amendments, comparatively late in the Session, and to take the Report and Third Reading later in this week. Moreover, of course, the Amendments that have been made will have to go back to another place. I am very reluctant to lose the Bill, having put so much time and effort into it, and I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen to forego their Amendment, after hearing the views that I have put to them.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: We have had thrust upon us the necessity in this matter of considering the responsibility and needs of the highway authorities. I am not one to detract from the importance of highway authorities and their activities, but I think it does behove us to bear in mind that, whether in fact they exercise them or not, the highway authorities, under this part

of this Schedule, would have the power to lay, or to cause to be laid, any new mains along suburban property, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) pictured, and laying them straight down a row of front gardens. Highway authorities may be important, but they, as we, serve the people who live in those houses and dig in those front gardens; and I think we ought to consider very seriously indeed before we give them unlimited power to take that course.
We are giving our attention at the moment very particularly to that part of the Schedule which relates to the designated land under the Town and Country Planning Act. We do not know, of course, how long the state of building up the plans will go on, but I, at least, can speak of the conurbation we have to live in around Birmingham, and I can tell the Committee that the planners are changing their ideas about where main roads should go from week to week. That means that for one project there may be several roads designated for widening. One knows in many cases that at least half the plans that now exist on paper will never be carried out. The only right of the owner and occupier of the house with the front garden is to wait 10 years—I think it is—before he says to the highway authority, "This plan has been on paper for 10 years. You must either put it into effect now or tear it up."
This Bill will not only be giving rather more power to the highway authorities and to those who want to lay their mains: it may also put the highway authorities themselves in a dilemma because they may have to use these powers in the future before their plans are crystallised It might help were we to know to what extent there do exist cases which could be dealt with only under paragraph (b). How many roads are there where it would be nice if we could lay electric mains under front gardens? How many roads are there where these front gardens are designated and could be immediately appropriated by the highway authority or under paragraph (c) for the laying of improvement lines? I have practised professionally in just the sort of place where this thing arises, and my experience is that in the great majority of cases it is already there under the improvement line, and that it is not needed under the Town and Country Planning Act.
As my hon. Friend said, we ought to face up to what we are doing. We are giving these people the right to go straight down the street in that way, using people's front gardens, the car parks of public houses, and other sacred land of that sort. We ought to face up to the fact that we are doing that, and to realise that we are giving a very big power to highway authorities, because I rather doubt whether the game is worth the candle.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Minister has made an appeal to us to reconsider our attitude on this matter. I must inform him that we gave a great deal of thought to it before we put down this Amendment. We were aware of the views of which he has informed us of the highway authorities as expressed by a certain association, or representatives of a certain association—one does not quite know to what extent those are the views of the constituent bodies. In spite of that I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I fear that we must press him upon this Amendment, because, although we know that there has been this working party going into these intricate provisions, we feel that in this regard the highway authorities have been looking at the matter a little bit too much from the angle of the highway authorities. We think that all the power a highway authority really requires would be—

Mr. Barnes: I thought that I would try persuasiveness to see whether I could convince the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends to forgo this Amendment. However, as I have indicated, it would be a thousand pities if we did not get this Bill now. We must co-operate on this. I realise that this is a point of substance, and therefore, as I have had a good deal of help this evening, I am prepared to accept this Amendment. In some ways I think that there is a case against it, but the whole Bill has been brought to its present stage by a process of give and take, and as that would be my decision in the final resort, rather than imperil the Bill I think it is better for me to say so and not to lengthen this Debate unduly.

Mr. Powell: As I moved this Amendment which the Minister has so graciously accepted, I should like to express our recognition of the way in which he has met us, and also to say that I do not really think that by accepting this Amendment he is losing any useful power

either for himself or for the highway authorities. He referred to the deletion of the provision, but in fact for all practical purposes the provision remains, and wherever there is a case for compulsory acquisition the land can be used as controlled land. I therefore feel sure that in time to come the Minister will have no regrets at the action he has taken.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 52, line 38, at end insert:
and references in this Act to works executed in controlled land shall extend to works executed in exercise of that right."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 54, line 28, after "authority" to insert:
or, upon appeal duly made by the undertakers, to the Minister.
This is more or less a drafting improvement. It merely gives the undertakers the right to appeal to the Minister against a determination. I think the Attorney-General and the Minister would think that the case to which it applies such a right of appeal should exist for the undertakers.

The Attorney-General: We would have thought that this was not necessary. It is a little more than drafting. The undertakers can only be called upon to pay under paragraph 6 (2) where they have themselves, in their own interests, asked the highway authority to make the land available. All that can be settled by agreement, and if the undertakers do not like the terms on which it is proposed to make the land available, they need not accept them. We think that they are fully protected, and that the Amendment would complicate matters unnecessarily by providing for an additional appeal to the Minister.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 54, line 30, to leave out paragraph 7.
This paragraph is a very curious and, it would appear, uncalled-for paragraph. Its effect is that, if by obliging undertakers to lay their apparatus not in a street but in controlled land the street authority thereby saves the undertakers


money, the undertakers have to pay to the street authority the amount they have saved. This is a very lucrative transaction for the street authority, because the street authority have not been put to any expense themselves in obliging the undertakers to use the controlled land instead of the street. I imagine that it will be a frequent result, since presumably the laying of apparatus in controlled land will on the whole be cheaper, and there will not be the same work necessary either in breaking up or in the reinstatement of a road surface. The effect of this paragraph, as it would appear, is to present an unearned income to the street authorities who are fortunate enough to have ample resources in potential controlled land. Perhaps this is not the intention or even the effect of the paragraph. If it is not, perhaps the Government will explain what its effect is.

The Attorney-General: I quite agree that in the way the hon. Gentleman has put it the matter does sound a bit queer, but it is one of the provisions which was negotiated in the way the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson), indicated—and negotiated most carefully between the authorities concerned. It is a question of gaining on the swings and losing on the roundabouts, as it was in regard to other provisions in the Bill.
Where a highway authority directs the undertakers to use controlled land, the highway authority has to pay the extra cost if extra cost is involved. If, on the other hand, the result of the direction is to save money, it was thought an appropriate quid pro quo for the undertakers to pay the saving to the highway authority. There was firm agreement about this between the local authorities and the different undertakers. It provides an important protection for the undertakers, taking the thing as a whole, because it ensures that the highway authorities will not exercise their power to compel the undertaker to put his apparatus in controlled land capriciously, since if there is additional cost the highway authority will be called upon to bear it.
8.30 p.m.
The converse case is not often likely to arise. Where savings result from the decision of the highway authority and the apparatus goes into the controlled land,

it was thought both by the highway authorities and by the undertakers who were the ones primarily concerned to be a not unfair quid pro quo. If one put it the other way, and relieved the undertakers of their liability to pay the saving over to the highway authority, they would be getting the best of both worlds; they would be getting payment if there was an additional expense and be saving money in the other case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in this case as in the others where the matter was the subject of a firm agreement between the interested parties and does not involve any general public interest, will think it right that the Clause should remain as it is.

Mr. Powell: I am not anxious to disturb provisions which arise upon agreement between the parties mainly interested, and therefore, although I am very far from thinking that the quid is actually a pro quo in this particular case, or that one process is logically the converse of the other, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 55, line 5, to leave out from beginning, to "paragraph," in line 6, and to insert—
ceases to be within the definition of controlled land contained in.
I think that this Amendment and the following Amendment in line 14 might be taken together.
The first is a drafting Amendment to meet the requirements of the County Council's Association. With regard to the second Amendment, it is not intended, when the land ceases to be controlled land for the purposes of the Bill because a building is erected upon it, that it should not be subject to the same saving for the right of undertakers as is contained in the proviso to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1. The Amendment makes that clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 14, at end insert—
Provided that (as respects any land ceasing to be controlled land under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule by reason of the placing of a building, structure or erection in controlled land after apparatus has been placed in it) this sub-paragraph shall have effect subject to the like saving for the right of undertakers as is contained in the proviso to the said sub-paragraph (2).

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(REINSTATEMENT AND MAKING GOOD BY STREET AUTHORITY OR STREET MANAGERS AFTER EXECUTION OF UNDERTAKERS' WORKS.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 56, line 7, after the first "works," to insert:
involving breaking up or opening thereof.
I propose that we consider together this Amendment and the subsequent Amendments in lines 12 and 48 and in page 57, line 1. They cover to some extent matters which we have touched on earlier in our discussions in Committee. They are designed to meet points raised on the Second Reading to cover the position where the undertakers execute their works and the highway authorities then take them over for reinstatement. I think that they are self-explanatory.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think that all sections of the Committee can welcome this Amendment which makes the provision much more clear and definite, and which, in my opinion, effects a very considerable improvement to this intricate, and, I hope, very useful Measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 56, line 12, after "the," insert "permanent."

In line 48, leave out "paragraph," and insert "Schedule."

In page 57, line 1, leave out from beginning, to the end of line 18, on page 58, and insert:
(2) In the said provisions, in relation to a street or controlled land that has been opened or broken up,—
interim restoration" means all such works as are requisite for securing that it does not remain open or broken up for any longer time than is reasonably necessary, and that its state during the period before it is permanently reinstated and made good at surface level is not such as to be likely to cause danger;
permanent reinstatement and making good" means any works of reinstatement and making good executed on any occasion otherwise than with a view to their being superseded by further works to be executed shortly thereafter; and

"surface level" means what was the surface level before the opening or breaking up.
3. The undertakers shall be under obligation (in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of section seven of this Act as to the time for the discharge of that obligation and otherwise) to execute the following reinstatement and making good, and no other, that is to say—

(a) interim restoration at any place during the period between the time when their obligation under the said subsection (2) to begin reinstatement and making good there arises and the time when they are given notice under paragraph 5 of this Schedule that the electing authority or managers are about to begin their permanent reinstatement and making good there; and
(b) such of the permanent reinstatement and making good as is not within the obligation of the electing authority or managers under the next succeeding paragraph.

4.—(1) The electing authority or managers shall be under obligation (in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of this Schedule as to the time for discharge of that obligation) to execute the permanent reinstatement and making good at surface level, and at lower levels so far as may be requisite for securing that the street or controlled land is permanently reinstated and made good at the surface level:
Provided that they shall not be under any obligation, and shall not have any power, to execute any of the permanent reinstatement and making good within twelve inches above apparatus of the undertakers, or, if and in so far as the electing authority or managers and the undertakers agree to the substitution of another measure for the said twelve inches for the purposes of this proviso, within that measure above such apparatus.
(2) During the period between the time when the electing authority or managers give notice under paragraph 5 of this Schedule that they are about to begin their permanent reinstatement and making good at any place and the time of the completion thereof there, they shall be under obligation to execute interim restoration there.
(3) The undertakers shall pay to the electing authority or managers an amount equal to the cost reasonably incurred by them in the discharge of their obligations under the preceding sub-paragraphs.
(4) The electing authority or managers shall be entitled, if and so far as may be requisite for the discharge of their obligation under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph as to permanent reinstatement and making good, to undo and do again reinstatement and making good previously executed by the undertakers, and the cost thereof reasonably incurred by the electing authority or managers shall be included in the amount payable to them under the last preceding sub-paragraph.
5.—(1) The electing authority or managers shall begin their permanent reinstatement and making good at any place as soon as is prudent and practicable after the time when the undertakers are to be treated under the next succeed-


ing sub-paragraph as having completed their works there and such of the permanent reinstatement and making good there as they are under obligation to execute.
(2) When—

(a) the undertakers have completed at any place their works and such of the permanent reinstatement and making good there as they are under obligation to execute; and
(b) if any notice under subsection (4) of section seven of this Act requiring the undertakers to remedy any defect in what they have done there has been given the proceeding consequent on the notice and any works which they are under obligation to execute by virtue thereof have been completed,

the undertakers shall give notice of the completion thereof to each of the authorities concerned who are entitled to give a notice under the said subsection (4), and on the giving by the undertakers of their notice they shall be treated for the purposes of this paragraph as haying completed their works there and such of the permanent reinstatement and making good there as they are under obligation to execute, if either—

(i) no notice under the said subsection (4) (or, if there has already been any such, no further such notice) is given by any such authority within the following time from the giving of the undertakers' notice, that is to say eight days in the case of such an authority being a Minister of the Crown, a county council or a transport authority, or four days in the case of any other such authority; or
(ii) any notice under the said subsection (4) so given (or every such notice if more than one) is withdrawn or is determined by arbitration not to be justified.

(3) When the electing authority or managers are about to begin their permanent reinstatement and making good at any place they shall give notice to the undertakers that they are about to begin it.
6.—(1) The duty to secure observance of the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of section eight of this Act (as to safety, obstruction and other matters) shall, as regards the observance thereof during and in connection with the execution of reinstatement and making good at any place, be on the undertakers until the electing authority or managers have given notice under the last preceding paragraph that they are about to begin their permanent reinstatement and making good there, but shall then devolve on the electing authority or managers.
(2) The undertakers shall pay to the electing authority or managers an amount equal to the cost reasonably incurred by them of performing duties devolving on them under this paragraph.

In page 58, line 19, leave out "subsection (3) of."—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth and Fifth Schedules agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Sixth Schedule.—(POWERS FOR CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL ENACTMENTS, AND FOR SAVINGS AS TO CERTAIN PROTECTIONS AND CONSENT REQUIREMENTS.)

Amendments made: In page 70, line 7, after "may," insert:
subject to the provisions of Part II of this Schedule.

In line 13, after "may," insert:
'subject to the provisions of Part II of this Schedule."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Seventh Schedule.—(APPLICATION TO LONDON.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 74, line 33, at the end, to insert:
(6) For the purposes of the operation of the Third Schedule to this Act in relation to a street or controlled land in London, the power thereby conferred on a street authority or street managers to elect to do reinstatement and making good after the completion of code-regulated works shall extend to a case in which the works fall within the exception contained in paragraph 1 of that Schedule as to certain works relating to service pipes or service lines or overhead telegraphic lines, and that exception shall not apply
This Amendment has been put down at the request of the Metropolitan Boroughs. I do not know whether I shall be in order in doing so, but I should like to thank Members for the way they have helped me to get the Bill through the Committee stage.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to welcome this Amendment, and to express our thanks for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and his assistants at the Ministry have so carefully considered all the views and points we have put forward in our common aim to make this Bill as good a Bill as we can.

Sir A. Hudson: I, too, wish to express my appreciation for what the Minister has done. All the points I made on Second Reading have been met in full, or an effort has been made to try to meet them. We all appreciate the way the Minister and the Department have worked at this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

Orders of the Day — LABELLING OF FOOD ORDER

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 27th June, 1950, entitled the Labelling of Food Order, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 1061), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be annulled.
The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments on 24th July reported this Order to this House on the grounds that its form and purport called for elucidation, and in view both of the fact that a mere glance at the Order shows that the Select Committee used the language of moderation in describing this extraordinary jumble of legislation and of the fact that so far as I am aware the Ministry of Food have taken no steps as a result of the Select Committee's Report, it seemed to me proper that on a Motion for annulment this evening this Order should be discussed by this House.
The grounds of the Select Committee's Report seem to be something of an understatement. The Order itself is some 19 pages long and is an extraordinary piece of elaboration. When one recalls that it is part of the law of this land, I think the time has come for a challenge to be made to legislating in this kind of way at all. May I, by way of example, quote some words from page 16 of the Order, to which I have already invited in another place the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, as an example of the way in which legislation is now conducted? On page 16 appear these words:
For the purposes of entry No. 5 above, the expression "flavouring" means any product which complies with the following conditions:

(a) it must have aromatic properties;
(b) where it is an ingredient of any food it shall have been added primarily for flavouring purposes and where it is packed for sale as such it shall be intended for use primarily for such purposes; and
(c) it shall consist of an essential oil, natural gum, gum resin, oleo-resin, a chemical having flavouring property, or any vegetable extractive, or a mixture of any of these, and it may also contain one or more of the following (but no other) ingredients:

(i) fruit juices;
(ii) such other substances as are reasonably necessary to produce a solid, a solution or an emulsion from the aforementioned ingredients;


but the expression shall be deemed not to include any preparation of yeast, coffee or chicory, any soft drink, or any substance prepared by the hydrolysis of protein-containing materials.
That is part of the law of this country which we are all presumed to know. It seems to me an example of the chaos created by such an Order, an Order which requires to be understood not merely by lawyers but by those who trade in food, and also the difficulty, which results from that sort of legislation when it has to be understood by people who earn their living subject to its provisions. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us—leaving aside for the moment the merits or demerits of the provisions of the Order—that his Ministry are going to stop legislating in this incomprehensible and incoherent manner.
The first point to which I would venture to invite the attention of the House—it bears upon what I have already said as to the difficulty which this form of legislation imposes upon those concerned—is article 12. Perhaps I had better read the relevant passage, which is:
Nothing in this Order shall relieve any person from complying with the provisions of any other Order or with the provisions of any Act of Parliament, Order in Council, regulation or byelaw for the time being in force, and in particular, where any provisions as to labelling of food appear in any other Order of the Minister, it shall be necessary to comply with the provisions both of such other Order and of this Order.
That means, as I understand it, that the trader who, by a miracle of ingenuity, succeeds in complying with all the 19 pages of this Order, is even then not safe from prosecution because there may be some other Order, not even specified in this Order, which deals with the same subject, and for a breach of which he may be punished.
The Order purports, in part at any rate, to be a consolidating Order, according to the explanatory notes, but it seems monstrous that a provision such as article 12 should be included, under which it is made clear that this Order is not even the whole of the Orders on this subject but that somewhere, unspecified, a further law is to be found which also has to be complied with. I hope that when the Ministry come again to deal with this matter—I feel that the confusion which they have created will force that necessity upon them before very


long—they will consider trying to get all the laws on this matter, at any rate all those made by regulation, into one complete, consolidating Order. I hope that they will not legislate by producing Orders of this kind, which purport to consolidate some of the law and deliberately leave out further Orders which may or may not apply.
Coming to the more detailed consideration of the parts of the Order I would ask the House to consider Article 4, which relates to, or at any rate is headed:
Special requirements as to the labelling of certain liquors.
By paragraph (g) it is provided that no one shall have in his possession for sale any liquor the label on which is,
by any name or words calculated to indicate either directly or by ambiguity, omission or inference that the liquor has properties which make it beneficial for invalids or has tonic, restorative or medicinal properties, unless the liquor contains a substance or substances other than alcohol added in such quantity as to confer such properties.
I should be very grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell me whether the affect of that regulation is to make illegal the use, at any rate on a label, of the well-known expression "Guinness is good for you"? I understand that it renders completely illegal the use of the expression "Invalid port."
It seems somewhat oppressive to provide that where, as in both those cases, an expression has been in use for a good number of years, it should now be ruled out by this regulation. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will have means of telling the House what these regulations are intended to do, and whether, in the view of his Department they will have the effect I have described. At any rate, a cursory reading of the regulations raises doubts about the effect of them, whatever may have been the intentions of the Department.
Regulation 4 (e) appears to make it illegal to produce and label the liquor which has been known for many years as "champagne cider." I do not know whether that is the intention. [Interruption.] I gather that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith), does not appreciate that beverage as do hon. Members who come from the West Country.

Mr. Norman Smith: I come from there.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Then the hon. Member should know better. That kind of perfectly harmless expression should not be prohibited. So far as I know, no good reason has been given for it.

Mr. Norman Smith: Is not the description "champagne cider" as about appropriate as the label "Democratic Tory"?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. Both expressions are wholly appropriate. Both indicate a winning commodity. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assistance. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary first of all whether that is the effect of the provision and, secondly, if it is, why it has been inserted.
Other parts of the Order seem to call for some comment. Article 8 follows what now seems to be the invariable practice of these regulations by imposing on any offender in proceedings brought by the Ministry the onus of establishing his innocence. I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply that that has been done before. That is perfectly true, but it is not a valid argument. It is possible that in the height of the war when the administrative machinery of the country was strained to the limit it may have been thought right to impose such a liability upon a defendant in order to ease that strain, but that is quite a different thing from doing so now.
Under Article 9 a defendant who desires to establish a defence of three specified kinds cannot do so unless he gives notice in writing beforehand to the prosecution. That seems to impose a quite intolerable burden upon people who are charged with criminal offences and subject to criminal penalties. I have no doubt at all that those provisions were simply put in the Order because they were in previous orders. I doubt very much whether the necessity for imposing on accused persons a burden so contrary to natural justice was ever seriously considered on its merits when the order was drafted. I do not believe there is the slightest necessity for it or, at any rate, that there is sufficient necessity to justify going so much against what used, before regulations of this kind became so


common, to be one of the principles of our English criminal law. Surely it is quite wrong to follow this practice of imposing these burdens and limitations upon persons accused of crime unless in a particular case an overwhelming justification on the facts can be made out. If the Parliamentary Secretary seeks to defend the provisions in Articles 8 and 9 I hope he will be prepared to tell the House the reasons which in his view and the view of his Department justify the reversal of the more normal and more natural principles of the criminal law.
Another somewhat objectionable provision, again of a type which is becoming only too familiar nowadays, is to be found in Article 13. There food imported on Government account is exempted from a great many of the provisions of the order. That seems to be a wholly unjustifiable privilege. Assuming that in the interests of the consumer any of the provisions of the order are necessary or desirable, they are surely just as necessary and desirable when the Government is the trader as when private firms or private individuals are the traders. It is surely quite wrong to exempt from provisions imposed upon ordinary traders trade carried on on Government account. When that trade is conducted by the very Department at the head of which is the Minister who is making these Regulations. a quite intolerable privilege is being conferred upon himself by the Minister of Food.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not seek to justify this exception by saying it has been done before. If he likes, I will make him a present of saying that in my view much of what has been done before on this subject has been wrong. When, however, a new Order of this kind is made surely it is incumbent upon the Ministry not merely to follow previous practice, which may well have been a bad practice, but to look anew at the actual merits of the matter and only to confer exceptional privileges of this kind upon themselves if there is an overwhelming justification, not from the point of view of administrative convenience, but from the point of view of public interest for so doing.
I cannot see how Regulations which it must be assumed are intended to be for the benefit of the consumer when imposed upon private traders are not equally for the benefit of the consumer when the

trader is the Ministry of Food. In view of recent events I do not suppose the Parliamentary Secretary will stand at that Box and say that every commodity imported and marketed by his Ministry is of the highest quality because he would find it a little difficult, for example, to satisfy the butchers of this country that that is so.
Those are some of the points which arise on this long, complex and obscure Order. Before sitting down I will make one general comment. The argument always used for regulations of this kind is administrative convenience. This House fully appreciates the difficult problems faced by the great Department of State which the Parliamentary Secretary represents, but it seems that in making these Regulations, as in making so many others, the Ministry have omitted to realise that they are, under powers delegated from this House, making the law of this land. And they bring the law of this land into contempt when they make it incomprehensible, when they make it deal in excessive detail with such matters as the definition of flavouring. It is sometimes forgotten by Ministers of Food and their advisers that when they make these regulations they are making part of the law of England and in this case, I would add, part of the law of Scotland with certain necessary adaptations—

Mr. David Renton: Wales too.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend below the Gangway refers to Wales. Being learned in the law, he will know that the law of Wales is substantially the same as that of England. Orders of this kind call for the sort of comment made by the Select Committee, the comment that their form and purport call for elucidation. It is in the hope that this evening both the form and the purport of this Order may receive elucidation that I beg to move.

9.0 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sorry that this Order purports to be a consolidation Order, because, of course, it is not really any honest consolidation whatsoever. That is most evident when one sees the way in which article 12 expressly provides that a whole host of


Regulations, Orders in Council, by-laws and so on, shall be in full force and effect although they concern exactly the same subject, namely, the labelling of food. It may well prove that with this Order and all those other Regulations which are preserved in current effect there may be many conflicts of interpretation.
In paragraph 3 of the memorandum which the Ministry presented to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, it is stated:
It was not the intention to apply by article 12 the provisions of any of the enactments specified in either Part I or Part II of the Schedule to the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.
Then, in paragraph 5, it is stated:
The enactments referred to in Part I of the Schedule are, in fact, applied with suitable modifications by articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Labelling of Food Order, 1950"—
that is, this Order.
When I look at articles 9, 10 and 11, I find no reference whatsoever to the enactments referred to in Part I of the Schedule or, indeed, any other enactments—it does not mention them. If that is the sense of the memorandum, it means that the Ministry of Food think that enactments can be applied without any specific reference. If that is so, it is not surprising that the Select Committee wondered whether or not article 12 was intended to apply all the provisions of the enactments specified in either Part I or Part II of the Schedule to the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943. No wonder that confusion was created when the Ministry of Food talked about articles 9, 10 and 11 applying certain enactments when those enactments are not even mentioned in any of those articles.
It has been the practice—a growing practice which. I think, ought to be universal—of most Ministries by now that when any Regulations or Orders purport to be consolidating in part but to be in part new, any new provisions incorporated should appear in thick type or should in some other manner be made quite conspicuous. There has been no attempt to do anything of that kind in this Order. It is quite impossible to discover what the new provisions are without an infinity of labour. The only assistance one derives at all is from the Explanatory Note, and that is only partial, because the Explanatory Note says:

This Order substantially re-enacts in a consolidated form the Labelling of Food Order, 1946, and its amending Orders … Certain new provisions have been introduced the principal ones being:—
Then it gives a list of a dozen or so new provisions, but in the text of the Order what paragraphs or sentences give effect to those new provisions it is almost impossible to determine, because they are all printed in the same type.
The number of new provisions cover a very wide range indeed. I pick on one which is relatively simple, I think, to show how complicated are the rest as they are woven into the text of the Order. Under item (k), it is provided that fish may be designated as fish—
fish to be designated as such when forming an ingredient of fish products …
That is permitted; but when one looks at the text of the Order, the matter is not quite so simple as appears in the Explanatory Note, because one has to look first of all at the First Schedule, where one finds in the first column, under "Description of Food":
Fish when forming an ingredient of fish products.
Then, in column 2, which has reference to the provisions of article 2 from which this is to be exempt, and in column 3 is the extent of the exemption:
Exempt to the extent that they may be designated as … fish … without further specification as to their common or usual name or as to composition.
I say that is a simple and a striking measure of liberty imported into this Order, but the other provisions are not nearly so simple. What I have indicated is complicated enough, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said in moving this Prayer, this Order is really a most fearful tangle and exceedingly difficult for anyone, even a person engaged in the trade, to understand.
I certainly think that it is quite wrong that by article 13 Government imports should be excluded from the operation of the Order. If it is right for the subject, it should also be right for the Crown to be bound by the terms of this Order. Article 13 says:
Saving for Government imports, Forces' food. … This Order … shall not apply to any food imported on Government account which is still contained in the wrapper or container in which it was so imported.


I suppose that would apply to snoek, Russian crab meat and Algerian wines. It is not to apply
to any food packed for consumption by His Majesty's Forces or the Forces of any of His Majesty's Allies or Co-belligerents.
Why should they be treated like that? What is good enough for us here should be available for them. Thirdly, it is not to apply
to any food intended at the time of sale for export from the United Kingdom, or for use as ships' stores.
I really cannot see the sense of these exemptions, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain in the course of his reply.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: The House will have been very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), who displayed a most unexpected solicitude for the people in overseas countries who buy British exports, even if those exports happen to be meretricious. I thought it had always been the point of view of the Tory Party that we were entitled to exploit foreign customers, as well we might.
I am surprised that the hon. Baronet is so concerned with the welfare of those people, but I was rather more interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who made me feel that this Order, so far from being an appropriate subject for annulment, really ought to be strengthened. Indeed, I should like to see the Ministry of Food act upon the Order if what the hon. Member said is true. He mentioned two commodities, both of which appeal to me immensely. One was invalid port and the other champagne cider. I think the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has something very useful there, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food or the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—I cannot say which, as both are on the Front Bench—will take note of what the hon. Member said.
I do not think the House will worry about the definition of flavouring foods. That is elementary organic chemistry which was perfectly understood by boys of 16 who went to the school to which I went, but when we come to champagne

cider, I remember that when I was at school we used to expend our hard-earned pocket money on it—it was not hard earned, but we had difficulty in getting it out of our fathers. We used to spend our pocket money on a dubious fluid labelled "champagne cider." We were impressed much more by the name than by the fluid. I should like to think that by this Order the Government could proceed against any private enterprising person who with the motive of private profit, sells something that has the label "champagne cider" on it, although it is neither champagne nor cider. As a Wiltshire man I know it is not cider. When I was serving in the Army in 1918, I went into Champagne. We were up to the knees it it—it is a geographical place name.
The fluid to which I have been referring should be the subject of prosecution. It is not champagne and it is not cider. I should like to think that this Order will enable the Government to proceed against private enterprising people selling it.

Mr. John Foster: Does the hon. Member think that Harvey's of Bristol should be prosecuted for selling "Bristol Milk" when there is no milk in it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): This Order deals only with labelling.

Mr. Smith: I think that the label "champagne cider" is a kind which is not altogether fair to the consumer. This Order, far from being annulled, should be kept in force and used for bringing to book people who sell what is labelled 'champagne cider."
"Invalid port" has a wide application. Anyone whose health is below par is an invalid, but that does not mean that he will derive benefit from the wine which comes from the Douro Valley. It seems that the hon. Gentleman was right. The Government ought to do something about this, and I think that the case made by the two hon. Members is really one for strengthening this Order rather than for annulling it.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) will for-


give me if I do not follow him in his somewhat irrelevant reminiscences, except perhaps to observe that the pocket money he received as a boy went very much further than the pocket money which we are now able to give our children.
Like many hon. Members, when I pick up a Statutory Instrument to read I take the line of least resistance and read first the explanatory note, if there is one. When I saw an explanatory note attached to this Order I felt some satisfaction at the thought that at last we were to have some consolidation of what had in recent years become a most confused part of the law. Only a few weeks ago I had to spend a whole day before a bench of lay magistrates arguing with another member of my profession—I was for the defence—as to the exact meaning of the orders which this Statutory Instrument is intended to replace. So when I turned to the Order, I looked for clarification because there was consolidation. I hoped that some of the points about which we had argued would not arise because of the consolidation which had taken place.
When I reached Article 12 of this Statutory Instrument I found that I was wrong. I was disillusioned because it happens that Article 12 is, as stated in the memorandum which the Ministry have supplied, merely a repetition of an Article which appeared in a number of previous orders on the same subject, and it is just that Article which had given rise to some confusion.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: That is why it is called consolidation.

Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Member, whose presence amongst us we are glad to have again, and who has not been slow to show that he is with us again, will forgive me, I am sure, for saying that in the sense in which he has interrupted, he is quite wrong. Because it so happens that when a Government Department gets hold of the most extraordinary mass of orders and amending orders which it has already put out and puts them into the form of a single order, the consolidation is not mere repetition as a consolidated Act of Parliament very often is. The consolidation is intended to be a gathering together of the meaning of various previous orders, and it is not necessary that every clause in the

previous orders should be repeated unless it happens to be material.
I suggest that Article 12 of the Order under discussion is superfluous and confusing. If this is substantially to re-enact in a consolidated form the Labelling of Food Order, 1946, and its amending orders, then surely it is time we got rid of the vague wording of the article. For the benefit of those hon. Members who have not a copy of the Order before them may I repeat this Article 12? It says:
Nothing in this Order shall relieve any person from complying with the provisions of any other Order or with the provisions of any Act of Parliament, Order in Council, regulation or byelaw for the time being in force,"…
stopping there, that in itself is an entirely superfluous statement, because when we make any law, unless we express something to the contrary, we never exempt people from complying with all the other laws. So it is superfluous to that extent. Then it goes on, and this is where confusion is created:
and in particular, where any provisions as to the labelling of food appear in any other Order of the Minister, it shall be necessary to comply with the provisions both of such other Order and of this Order.
If this is intended substantially to re-enact in a consolidated form the Labelling of Food Order, 1946, and its amending orders, why do we need to give a suggestion that there are other provisions relating to the labelling of food in any other order made by the Minister?
On the face of it, it seems quite absurd, and that absurdity is not in any way explained or removed when we turn to the memorandum which the Ministry of Food have given. I refer to Appendix II of the Fourth Report of the Statutory Instruments Committee and to paragraph 7 of Appendix II. There we find the most surprising statement:
The provisions of Article 12 have appeared in precisely the same form in the Labelling of Food Orders since 1944.
That in itself is not a good reason for repeating them if they have already given rise to confusion; and I give evidence before the House tonight that they have given rise to confusion.
… and the intention was not to apply the provisions of any other enactment. …
If that is so, why do they say that the provisions of other enactments must be applied?


… but merely to make it clear that the provisions of other enactments, including Acts of Parliament … so far as they relate to labelling of food are unaffected and remain to be complied with"—
"remain to be complied with," although they are not to be applied, it seems confusing—
in addition to the requirements of the Labelling of Food Order, 1950.
Surely this statement in the Memorandum by the Ministry of Food is in itself clear proof that article 12 is not required and in view of the fact that it has caused such confusion in the past I think it is high time the Ministry of Food dropped that article altogether.
There is one further point. At the same time, or approximately the same time, as the Order under discussion was made, another Order, called the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Order, Statutory Instrument 1044 of 1950, was made. We find that the functions which the Minister of Food is exercising by means of the Order under discussion are to be transferred in part to the President of the Board of Trade. I would have thought that, if the President of the Board of Trade were to have functions specially transferred to him, it would have been far better to allow him to make his own Order exercising his own functions, instead of his having to adopt the functions of the Ministry of Food Order which came into operation after he acquired the functions which are given to him by the Transfer of Functions Order. I suggest that would have been the simple way to do it, but if there is a good explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary as to why the whole of this Labelling of Food Order, 1950, should come into operation all at once, in spite of the Transfer of Functions Order, let him give it to us.
I feel that my hon. Friends have done a good service by raising this matter tonight, and I hope that the tradesmen of this country, who, after all, stand to be prosecuted if they do not comply exactly with these complicated provisions, will be spared some of the agony—and I hope their legal advisers as well—by the Government deciding to withdraw this Order and start afresh on a much more sensible basis.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) said that the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) apparently was to allow breaches of the law to be committed with impunity. That is a travesty of what my hon. Friend was trying to do, which was to get the Government to bring in an Order which was as clear as possible and which would allow people who are prosecuted for these offences to know as easily as possible what the offences are. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, that it is very desirable to have legislation on these principles. What we object to is the way in which the Order is drafted, because it is confusing and its articles are in many cases unnecessarily complicated. We think the Government should really make a better show of drafting this kind of legislation.
I want only to draw attention to one point in connection with Article 12. I will not repeat the strictures which my hon. Friend levelled at it, but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind that there is a provision in Article 1 (3) which appears to conflict with Article 12 and again raises unnecessary complications. Article 12 provides that this Order shall not exempt anybody from complying with the law of the land, and goes on to say that, if the Minister orders the labelling of any food under any other Order, the member of the public concerned, or whoever has to deal with this food, has to comply with it and with the other Order as well.
Then, if we look at article 1 (3), we find that, if there is a definition of a food under another Order of the Minister, that definition shall apply in this Order. So far, so good, but it goes on to say that, if there is a definition of a food under an Order of the Minister regulating prices and also another definition in his own Order which does not regulate prices, then the definition in the Order regulating prices shall apply. How can Article 12 say that one has to obey every other Order notwithstanding anything in this Order, and at the same time this Order says that one need not pay attention to the other Orders but can disregard the definition contained in an Order not regulating prices? It makes possible the raising of a legal technicality. I see what


is being aimed at, but in my humble submission this could have been better drafted. The intention could have been achieved without this circle of Article 12 saying that one must obey every other Order which the Minister issues notwithstanding any other provision in this Order and then finding in another provision that it says one need not obey. That seems to me to raise a complication.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this point when he replies, because I think the wording is complicated. The point is fairly simple. Apparently there are two definitions in some Orders or, rather, one definition in one Order and one in another. This Order says that one can disregard the definition which is not in a price regulating Order, but that one must pay attention to a provision in a price regulating Order. That does not seem to be logical, and that is a reason why the Government ought to try again. We are not opposed to the principles of this Order.

Mr. Norman Smith: The hon and learned Member has three times repeated that he is not opposed to the principle of the Order. Do I understand that he would approve of a prosecution under this Order against the makers of Harvey's Bristol Cream for using a misleading label?

Mr. Foster: That has been tried, but they have got rid of a ridiculous prosecution. There are things which are defined in one way and which have a second meaning. Take, for instance, a cream bun. Nobody would expect to find cream in a cream bun, because it is a liquid. What is in it is a cream-coloured mixture and nobody would say that was a misleading label. We have to look at what is misleading in the light of the way people use words and not in the light of the goodwill and trade marks associated with particular foods and drinks. I suggest that in the case of "champagne cider" everybody knows what it is, and it would be very unfair—

Mr. Keenan: What is it?

Mr. Foster: It is neither champagne nor cider.

Mr. Keenan: National-Liberal.

Mr. Foster: Everybody understands what it is, and it would be very unfair

after so many years to say to the makers, "You are using the wrong term and you should be prosecuted." The hon. Gentleman has had his joke, but I think the makers of "champagne cider" are excellent people and are in no way deceiving the public. Even in the Boer War people were not deceived by what they called it.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I wish to intervene for only a few moments in this interesting discussion. I think the House will agree that tonight's proceedings add yet another sense of obligation which the House and the country as a whole should feel to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) for the vigilance with which they scrutinise these Statutory Instruments and for the skill with which they expose their weak and dangerous points.
This Debate has been characteristic of such Debates in that it has been the occasion for various constructively critical speeches from this side of the House and one speech only from the benches opposite, that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith). I do not know whether the hon. Member has read the Order—he certainly did not seem to have furnished himself with a copy of it—but I hasten to say that his speech was not the less interesting on that account. It seemed to me, listening attentively to what he had to say, that he gave the House to understand that in his younger years he was steeped in "champagne cider," in his middle years, he was steeped in champagne, and in his maturer years—a not unnatural consequence—he is steeped in invalid port. I had always thought there must be some explanation of the political opinions and rhetorical exercises of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, and now we know.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend—and in this we are at one with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South—that the principles which are designed to be embodied in this Order command the assent of my hon. Friends on this side of the House as well as that of hon. Members opposite. It is the slovenliness of the drafting of the Order which calls for rebuke from us on this side of the House, and from all those who value clarity in the expression of the law.
Now, several of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to article 12 of the Order, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) has defined the dual effect of that article. So far as the first effect is concerned, which he has criticised as being redundant, I do not think that that is necessarily a bad thing. It is quite true, as lawyers know, that even if one does not express it in a Statutory Instrument, the unfortunate citizen is not relieved from the obligation of obeying any other law on the subject, but it is possibly not a bad thing to remind the non-lawyer of that in a Statutory Instrument of this sort.
It is the second point of that article which I find obnoxious, where it says:
… where any provisions as to the labelling of food appear in any other Order of the Minister, it shall be necessary to comply with the provisions both of such other Order and of this Order.
I make bold to say that that is an expression which ought never to appear in any Statutory Instrument at all. It is perfectly possible for those persons to whom is entrusted the drafting of such an Order to bring into one Order all the provisions relating to this particular subject, and that is the proper and the tidy way of dealing with these Statutory Instruments.
Now, I am very fair minded, and shortly before the House rose for the Summer Recess I congratulated the Minister of Town and Country Planning on the fact that as he fumbles his way forward from change to change in the law relating to town and country planning, he does, at least, revoke any previous Statutory Instruments and re-enact a composite Statutory Instrument. Well, surely the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to go to the Despatch Box and confess that the Ministry of Food are content to lag behind the Ministry of Town and Country Planning? Surely where they lead he can at least follow? Surely there would be no difficulty in his Ministry producing an Order which embodied the whole of the Orders relating to this subject in one Statutory Instrument? It is difficult enough, with an Order framed as this Order is framed, for those whose task it is to interpret the law to understand it, but for those unfortunate people who are not versed in law, and whose task is simply to comply with the Order, it is a good deal more difficult.
Let me end on this point, which is an echo of the point made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. Surely the task of any Minister, in framing these Statutory Instruments, is to make it as easy as possible for the citizen to realise what the law is. Surely what they ought to bear in mind is this, that they have in their Departments persons whose sole concern and preoccupation is the drafting and interpretation of these Orders, but that the people who have to comply with them, and who are bound to obey them, are under the painful necessity of doing an ordinary day's work in the furtherance of the industry and commerce of this country, in order that those various Ministries may exist at all. That is the right attitude of mind for a Minister to adopt when he is adding to the law of England by the formulation of these Statutory Instruments. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will confess that article 12 is one which should not have appeared in this Statutory Instrument, and that he will give an unqualified undertaking that nothing so slovenly will ever appear again.

9.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): We have heard some rather extravagant criticism of the drafting of this Order, but I shudder to think what the state of confusion would have been if I had been unfortunate enough to take the advice of those who have contributed to the Debate so far. The position with regard to the Order is very simple. To the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), who professes that article 12 has been the subject of confusion, I say that that simply is not the case. The previous article had an exactly similar provision; it also went before the Select Committee—as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will remember—and the Committee did not then feel it right or proper to call the attention of the House to that previous Order.

Mr. Renton: As the hon. Gentleman is challenging what is, in effect, the evidence I have given to the House, perhaps he will permit me to repeat that I had to spend the whole of one day—and the controversy was not entirely of my making, for the prosecution also had some doubts—discussing the effect of article 12


on the existing orders. After all, this particular Order does not come into operation until 31st October, and it was not until I had had that experience that, as a Member of the Statutory Instruments Select Committee, I felt it my duty to draw the attention of the Committee to the confusion which had already arisen, and which was apparently being repeated in this Order. It may well be that no previous Member of the Committee had had the same experience that I had had, and that may well be a reason why the previous Orders got through.

Mr. Willey: That only confirms what I have just said, that there is no indication that if there be confusion about the present article 12 or the previous article that confusion is of other than recent origin. This matter however has been drawn to the attention of the House by the Select Committee, and I wish to deal shortly with the points that have been raised.
First let me deal with article 12. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) cannot have it both ways. He cannot begin by complaining of an Order being 19 pages long and then say that it is not a broad enough consolidating measure, and that it ought to contain all the provisions relating to the labelling of food. If that happened it would be much longer than 19 pages.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman surely appreciates that the objection springs from the combination of excessive length and inadequate scope.

Mr. Willey: I am dealing with only one point at the moment. I will come to the other point. The first thing I want to say about article 12—and I do not think this has been seriously disputed—is that it is purely declaratory; it has already been pointed out that it is superfluous, and it only appears in the Order in an endeavour to be helpful to the food manufacturers and others who rely upon it. I can really add very little more to the memorandum of the Ministry upon that point.
In paragraph 7 of their memorandum they call attention to other provisions which affect labelling. It was felt that from a drafting point of view it would make the Order confusing if all these provisions, which only apply, by and

large, to particular commodities, were set out in an Order of this nature. The Ministry thought it right and proper by an Order such as this to give notice to the traders that with regard to margarine, cheese and that sort of thing entirely different provisions still apply.
Apart from those cited here, there are many other provisions, such as those about the provision of merchandise marks. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that all the provisions about merchandise marks should be set out in this Order? Again, on the question of preservatives and prices, what the Order does is no more than to say that these are the consolidated provisions but there are provisions affecting labelling, and it would be wise to bear them in mind.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the hon. Gentleman will look at article 1 (3), he will see that the price regulation, if there is a conflict between two Orders, is the one that governs a particular case. Now he says that under article 12 all other Orders have equal validity. Does article 1 (3) mean that the price regulation is the key test or does article 12 constitute the key test?

Mr. Willey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has done no more than repeat the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), and I did not think that that was a point worth replying to. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not fully read the Order. He is confusing compliance with other provisions and description or definition for the purposes of the Order.
I was asked whether there was any difficulty or danger in continuing the appeal that "Guinness is good for you." Of course there is not. I am afraid that the same does not apply to invalid port, and this is no more than a protection to the consumer. There is no difference in substance between invalid port and other port. If there is a difference, it is one which I will not comment upon. Why should the consumer be misled in this way? Medical advice—I hope that I have the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) with me—has always been that such misleading descriptions should be prohibited. The same is true, as has been already mentioned, about champagne cider. I might add this with regard to


Champagne cider, that we had no representations at all from the cider industry about this provision.
There is only one other point which it is necessary for me to deal with. It is a point of substance. That is why the provisions of this Order should not apply to Ministry purchases. The reason for that is quite shortly this: That Ministry of food purchases have generally been made of supplies when they have been in short supply in the world. For that reason, it has been right and proper to say that we should obtain this or that commodity which has been in short supply, although the goods themselves may be incompletely labelled. As goods get into better supply and trades turn to private industry, the protection of the consumer regarding the description of the goods in the tins labelled becomes of greater importance, and therefore we will see that the provisions of this Order are applied.

9.45 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This Debate has concerned the interpretation of articles 12 and 13 of the Order. Perhaps I might start with article 13. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Ministry of Food could not be bound by any terms in this Order because they are buying things which are in short supply. In other words, if things are in short supply they cannot be bound by the definitions which apply to those articles which are in more generous supply. That seems a most extraordinary argument, especially when we come to think of what has happened in the case of such commodities as snoek. Is the Parliamentary Secretary going to say that snoek was is short supply when it was bought? Again, what about the many tins of canned meat which had a surplus label on them when they were put in the shops? I have no doubt that the Algerian wine could have been labelled "British type Burgundy."
We have not been given a single instance where it has been necessary for the Ministry to buy an article in short supply which could not have been fairly labelled under the terms of the Order. This is simply one of those things which has been put in to safeguard the Department against any possible repercussions, while at the same time requiring private traders to meet these requirements. We have had a certain amount of talk about meat products, and we have seen what has

happened at the latest conference of the Meat Traders' Association. The canned meat covered by this Order has been completely repudiated as an article that could be sold under fair conditions to customers who want good quality meat.
It means that supplies which do not conform to any known prescription must be safeguarded just because they have been bought under bulk purchase, whereas if the supplies have been bought in any other way they cannot be allowed to be sold. This Order is designed to ensure that bulk purchases of whatever quality and specification can be dumped on the consumer without there being any terms and conditions which we are all agreed are necessary for the protection of the consumer.
In regard to article 12, the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that I had reiterated a point which had already been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). But, surely the point is one of the utmost importance. We have here two separate tests. In the one case there is the criterion that whatever else may happen we have to take price regulation as being the ultimate arbiter, whereas in another case we are saying that that is not to be so and we have to take into account certain conditions, which is the right test. After all, in another week's time these conditions will be binding on all persons selling foodstuffs within the ranges mentioned in the Order. It is not good enough to say merely that this is a point which has been made before. It is necessary to produce a definite reply for the satisfaction of Members on both sides of the House as to which test is the standard to be applied. I do not think it is fair to say that here is a point which is a difficult one, and which has already been made without producing any answer.
In conclusion, my chief objection is to article 13, which allows the Government in bulk purchasing to override every single considered test and standard of fitness that is made for private enterprise; and, secondly, in article 12, to introduce such a complex state of affairs that a private trader is going to be very lucky if, in his own small way, he can say which is the best way to serve the consumers. Before we leave this Order.
I hope we shall get a clearer and better statement from the Government.

9.51 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I should like to comment on one observation in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply—the observation which related to such claims as are made for alcoholic fluids, whether they be coloured dark or light. Article 7 of this Order prohibits the claiming of tonic properties for any food by reason only that the food consists of alcohol. Proceeding on the assumption that the liquid in question contains the alcohol, too, there is nothing in this Order which precludes the most fantastic claims which an advertising imaginative genius can make for fluids containing alcohol on the assumption that those fluids do not purport to be foods.
While I support entirely the general purpose of this provision, and although I know that to speak in any critical terms of the food, stimulant and the tonic qualities of alcohol, is somewhat unpopular, I want to make the point that a great deal of the publicity and advertising which is intended to suggest the nutritional quality of alcoholic beverages is based not on psychology but on a fantastic conception of what such food can do to sustain the human frame. The purpose of this Order, in prohibiting such false claims for foods only on the ground that they contain alcohol, might well be extended to such liquids as are alleged to contain alcohol, if only to prevent false claims being made for their food quality.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. The fact that alcoholic drinks do not contain building or other nutritional elements need not necessarily condemn them. I am not depressing the effect which such properties have on the higher centres of energy and on our worries and sense of fatigue. What I am saying is that if the purpose be to prevent the making of false claims, it would be a very desirable thing to address attention to the falseness of the claims that are made for the food value and the building value of such liquids as have on other grounds much to commend them to many in this House. I am bound to say that I deplore the absence of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) on this occasion. I think it is a pity. [An HON. MEMBER:

"Perhaps he is at the bar."] I will not pretend to suggest that I know where he is or what he is doing.
There is a great deal of nonsense talked about the food value of alcohol and a great deal of misleading propaganda to suggest that it has a food value which it has not. I would much rather see the excellent fluids to which I am referring properly described and given the credit for all the good they do without the pretence that they sustain the human frame, that they are of particular value to the expectant and nursing mothers and that they have any nutritional value worth considering.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am bound to say that I did not find the Parliamentary Secretary's reply though couched in his usual style of reasonable fairness very satisfactory. He did not attempt to deal with a number of the points that were made by hon. Members as to the drafting of the Order. No doubt, good tactician that he is, he did not attempt to defend the indefensible. I hope, nevertheless, that he and those who advise him have heard the comments made by hon. Members on these points and that they will, if only to avoid a similar experience in the future, draft these Orders a little more clearly and effectively.
The Parliamentary Secretary's reference to the points raised before the Select Committee seemed to me to verge upon disrespect for that Committee. He told the House that his answer was contained in the memorandum submitted by him, but he did not point out that it was after that memorandum had been submitted and considered that the Select Committee decided to report this Order to this House. He must appreciate that, in view of that highly expert body which is entrusted by this House with specific functions, the memorandum to which he referred with apparent satisfaction, was not satisfactory.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I want to assure the House that I did not intend in any way to be disrespectful to the Select Committee, of which I was once a member. I had in mind that when a memorandum is submitted to the Select Committee it is not published unless the report of the Committee is published to the House.


I am not quarrelling at all about this matter being raised here by Prayer, but what I thought was essential—that is why I referred to the memorandum—is that if there is confusion the confusion should be dispelled. I think that has been done.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary sought to satisfy this House by reference to the memorandum. The Select Committee, entrusted by this House with specific functions and supported by most skilled advisers, was not satisfied. If the hon. Gentleman does not find it possible to give a better explanation that is some reason why this House should be equally dissatisfied. He brushed aside the issue of the prohibition of the use of the title "champagne cider"—which so pleased his hon. Friend from Nottingham—which is a very good export line. It is not seriously suggested that anybody has been misled into thinking the drink is champagne. It is a perfectly well established line, and to eliminate this perfectly harmless trade practice must have repercussions upon our export trade.
I think the hon. Gentleman's defence of article 13 and of the exemption of Government trading from the greater part of this Order was much the weakest part of his speech. He based his argument upon "short supply," a phrase which his Department invariably prefers to the clearer expression "scarce." What he did not seem to appreciate is this. Private importers sometimes, when he lets them, import commodities which are scarce. If the argument for contracting out of the Order is good when his Department imports scarce commodities it is surely equally good when private traders do so. If the Order related to anybody—his Department or a private trader—importing anything from a scheduled list, varied from time to time, of scarce commodities, there would be a case for it, but to confer this privilege on his Department when it imports anything, scarce or plentiful, and to deny this to private traders, carries a taint of privilege with it which seems highly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman may be overlooking the fact that these provisions are also to protect the good decent private importer. When a commodity is decontrolled it is to protect the importer of good commodities against the shoddy commodity that a provision like this is necessary.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That argument would have considerable force if the importation of shoddy commodities were a monopoly of the private trader, but the Parliamentary Secretary must realise that the consumer, who is much more important in this connection than traders, public or private, is just as likely to require protection from the products imported by his Ministry as from those by a private trader. After all, a private trader who markets shoddy goods is always subject to the sanction that if he persists he will in the end go bust, but when his right hon. Friend, with his monopoly powers, imports shoddy goods the same sanction does not apply because he is a monopolist and, anyhow, has the taxpayer at his back. The Parliamentary Secretary did not seem to grasp that if these provisions are wise and necessary for the protection of the consumer they are at least as necessary when the trader is the Ministry of Food as they are when he is a private trader. To repeat what I was saying when the Parliamentary Secretary intervened, there is a very unpleasant reek of administrative privilege about this.
As has been said, the Order, for all its prolix complexity, contains a good deal of necessary law, some of it re-enacted, and the House is faced with the difficulty that if it were to annul the Order it would sweep away with a certain amount of rubbish some very necessary provisions. Therefore, I would not recommend my hon. Friends to vote tonight to annul the Order. I recall that on the last occasion when that advice was given by an hon. Member from this side of the House the enthusiasm which he had aroused among hon. Members opposite was such that, notwithstanding his moderation, they somewhat embarrassed the Government by carrying the Prayer against the Government. I cannot give the Parliamentary Secretary any undertaking that that will not occur tonight, although I understand that certain steps taken by the Patronage Secretary recently have somewhat diminished any such risk. While I cannot withdraw the Prayer, since to do so would be to admit satisfaction with what was a thoroughly unsatisfactory reply, I equally could not press the matter to a Division, and, so far as I am concerned. I shall be quite willing to have the Motion negatived.

Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT (OPERATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

10.4 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: We have just had an interesting discussion attempting to annul something that has been enacted. Now I want to take a contrary line and ask why something that was enacted in the last Parliament has not yet been put into operation.
The Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, received the Royal Assent on 16th December last, and on 1st March this year an Order was issued bringing into operation from 1st June, 25 Sections of that Act. By the same Order Section 13 is brought into operation as from 1st January next. That leaves 20 Sections of the Act without any date for their operation, and I want to ask whether my hon. Friend can give the House any information when they will be operated.
This was a non-contentious Bill and it raised great hopes amongst the thousands of justices of the peace throughout the country—the great unpaid, as they have been called; hopes which have been somewhat dashed by the long delay in putting the Act completely into operation. It is also becoming somewhat urgent by reason of the fact that the Magistrates Association will be holding their annual conference this week and they will be anxious to know whether there is any news from the Government on this subject.
The most important Section is Section 16, which deals with the establishment of magistrates' courts committees. Such committees have been envisaged ever since the Roach Committee Report of 1944, and unless and until those committees are established much of the purpose of the Act will remain unfulfilled—for example, Section 17 which deals with the provision of courses of instruction—because it is the magistrates' courts committees that have the duty imposed upon them, amongst other things, of arranging for courses of instruction for new justices.
Section 17 becomes more important than ever because of the new insistence oh a reduction in the number of justices sitting on a bench at the same time. No longer shall we have one or two experts leading a crowd of justices who are really

acting as jurymen. In future every justice who sits will have to be an expert, fully acquainted with and instructed in his or her duties. This Section depends to a large extent on Section 8 which provides for the payment of travelling and lodging allowances. It will be the first time that such allowances will have been paid, but unless and until they are paid it will obviously be difficult, if not impossible, for many justices to pay their travelling expenses, meals, and in some cases lodging expenses in order to attend courses of instruction. Therefore, many of those Clauses are linked together. Section 36 is allied with Section 8 because it deals with the payment of travelling and lodging allowances for members of probation committees and case committees. None of those Sections I have mentioned has yet been given any date for its operation.
Reverting for a moment to the important question of courses of instruction, although the Magistrates Association is a voluntary body with limited means, it has organised during the past year 17 conferences in various parts of the country which have been attended by 1,700 justices of the peace. In addition, they have organised correspondence courses which have been most successful, all at the expense of the individual justices.
Now I come to Section 18 which deals with powers and duties of magistrates courts committees as to petty sessional divisions. This important Section will open the way for these committees to carry out much needed reforms, particularly in connection with juvenile courts. There are several other Sections which are interlinked in the sense that the operation of one must await the operation of the other. The first example I give is Section 10 (Area of commission), which was referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General during the Report stage of the Bill on 13th December last. My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that:
Before the magistrates' courts committees can be set up … the provisions of Clause 10"—
of the Bill, as it then was—
… must have been brought into operation.
It obviously seems desirable that every borough should be aware of this status at the earliest possible date. The Attorney-General also said that before the financial provisions, now embodied in Sections 25–28, can be brought into operation,


the magistrates' courts committees must be set up at least six months before then …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2562.]
The target date which my right hon. and learned Friend had in mind was 1st April, 1951. It will, obviously, now be impossible for that date to be maintained, because, as he said, the committees must have been set up at least six months before that date. I should like to know, therefore, what is the new target date.
Section 12, which deals with the licensing authorities for non-county boroughs, is in a rather special position. It is linked with Part II of the Licensing Act, 1949, and it seems that if these provisions of that Act, coupled with Section 12 of the Justices of the Peace Act, are not brought into operation shortly, they will be too late for the Brewster Sessions of next year.
Coming to Section 15 (Rule committee and rules of procedure) I should like to ask my hon. Friend how the Rule Committee is proceeding. That Committee are understood to be in being, but there is no definite information as to their constitution. When they produce their draft rules, will they be submitted to the Magistrates' Association or any other similar body for comment before they are finally cast into their final form? I suggest it is desirable that that should be done. It may be anticipated that the rules will shortly be available, because Section 13 comes into operation on 1st January next, and this Section depends to some extent on the rules that will be produced by this body which I understand is now sitting.
The final Section to which I want to refer is Section 19. Here is a matter of great importance to both justices' clerks and to the magistrates, who in future will be the direct employers of their clerks. Similar remarks apply to the whole of Part III of the Act. Many matters including conditions of service, which apply to justices' clerks are at present outstanding. Although they should be dealt with by the existing standing joint committees, it is fairly obvious—it is quite natural—that those committees will not embark upon any important decisions now, when they are on their deathbed, before the new committees are set up. We have the position, therefore, that in many districts there is a feeling of frustration and even of embarrassment at this hiatus between the dying of the standing joint

committees and the setting up of the magistrates' courts committees.
I am certain that the Minister is not unsympathetic in this matter. What I am really asking him for tonight is some news for the magistrates and the justices' clerks and others who are particularly interested in the operation of the Act, as to when those 20 Clauses which I have mentioned are likely to come into operation. I invite my hon. Friend to tell the House as much as he possibly can.

10.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) for the way in which he has put his case. It would be for the convenience of the House if I dealt first with Section 15 because the reason no date has been fixed for this Section is entirely different from the reason no date has been set for the other provisions of the Act. By Section 15 the Lord Chancellor has power to appoint a Rule Committee to advise him on making rules for regulating and prescribing the procedure and practice in magistrates' courts and by justices' clerks. We intend to consolidate the Summary Jurisdiction Acts and we are therefore very carefully reviewing the powers and procedures of magistrates' courts.
As is well known by those who deal with these matters, the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts on matters of procedure are interwoven with substantive provisions. Until we have got a good deal further in separating these procedural provisions from the substantive provisions, nothing would be gained by setting up a Rule Committee under this provision. The Lord Chancellor made this clear in another place and explained that to review the Summary Jurisdiction Acts would take some time. He explained why he would not undertake to set up a Rule Committee at once. This review has gone ahead, but it is still too early to say that it would be an advantage to set up such a committee.
I admit it is true with respect to the rules under Section 13—and the Lord Chancellor in that case has consulted a number of interested organisations—that the existence of a Rule Committee would have been an advantage on this point. However, in general the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and that is


why, as he forecast in another place, this committee has not been set up.
Coming to Sections 16, 17, 18 and so on—the bulk of the provisions of this Act—I must refer to the answer given last May to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington. The Home Secretary said that the provisions of the Act relating to the setting up of magistrates' courts committees could not be introduced in isolation from the financial provisions of the Act and, because of the economic situation and the need for strict economy, the Home Secretary could not say when it would be possible to bring those provisions into operation. That answer did not mean that the Government have decided to postpone the operation of the Act. It meant that no decision had been made to bring the provisions of the Act into force.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington stated, the scheme of this Act envisages that the remaining provisions, except those in Section 15 with which I have dealt separately, will be brought into operation in two stages. First, there will be the abolition of the separate commission of the peace for small areas, for which provision is made in Section 10, and, secondly, the transfer to magistrates' courts committees of their responsibilities under the Act, together with the putting into effect of the main financial provisions of the Act under Section 27.
This second stage covers all the other Sections mentioned tonight, including two which the hon. Member picked out specially, Sections 8 and 36. It covers Sections 8 and 36 because the magistrates' courts committee will administer the scheme dealt with there and the payments will be included in the cost of administering courts and will therefore be shared between local funds and the Exchequer. It would clearly be a very great advantage indeed if both stages could be introduced at the beginning of a financial year. The interval between the two stages would then be 12 months. That intervening 12 months would be well used. The magistrates' courts committees would be set up to review their areas and make plans to take over their full functions at the beginning of the next financial year.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Act received the Royal Assent on 16th December last year. There was not enough time

for the first stage, that is, the abolition of commissions for small areas under Section 10, to be introduced on 1st April. This is because under Section 10 (5) the Lord Chancellor has to examine those non-county boroughs having a separate commission of the peace and a court of quarter sessions which would lose them under the general provisions of the Section, and to save the grant to the borough of its commission of the peace and court of quarter sessions if he is satisfied that it is desirable so to do. There was not enough time for this review to be undertaken with the care demanded by such an important matter, and for the Lord Chancellor to announce his decision in good time before the beginning of the financial year.
I ask the House, and in particular my hon. Friend, to agree with me that the best date for bringing into force Section 10 would be 1st April, 1951; and secondly, that the best date for the magistrates' courts committees to take over—the second phase, that is—would be 1st April, 1952. I have carefully noted what has been said in favour of the early operation of the outstanding provisions of this Act. I very much regret that I cannot at present give an undertaking that the dates of 1st April, 1951, and 1st April, 1952, will be met. But I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking that I shall see to it that his powerful arguments in favour of early operation are carefully considered.

Mr. H. Hynd: Would my hon. Friend make clear one point? He has just suggested 1st April, 1952. as the best date for the magistrates' courts committees to take over. He envisaged the period of 12 months after they had been set up before they could operate. Does he mean that they will begin to operate from 1st April, 1952, or that they will be constituted on that date and that it will be a further 12 months before they will begin to take over?

Mr. de Freitas: I was referring to the intervening period of 12 months between 1st April, 1951, and 1st April, 1952, as the period to be occupied by the first phase.

Question put, and agreed to,

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes past Ten o'Clock.